00B.15 Chapter 8--Marriage and Divorce

Marriage and Divorce

(1) Questions About Divorce. (2) More About Divorce. (3) Shall We Make Exceptions to God’s Law? (4) "Marriage and Di­vorce." (5) How Does God Join Man and Woman Together in Wed­lock? (6) Were They Really Married? (7) Line Upon Line, Pre­cept Upon Precept, Here a Little, There a Little. (8) The Divorce Problem. (9) God Hates Divorce. (10) Was What Jesus Taught on Divorce Bound by the Apostles? (11) Christ and Paul on Divorce. (12) Wife Bound; Brother or Sister Not Bound—Paul.

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE The question of divorce will not down. It has not been long since a series of articles on this question was published in this paper. But now the request has come to this depart­ment for a full explanation of what constitutes scriptural divorce, and the question is raised about a second marriage while the first companion is yet living. The brother thinks that married persons may be separated, but he does not think either party can ever scripturally marry again while the other party to the contract lives.

Another reader has sent a tract on the subject of divorce and requested the editor to review it.

Before we enter into a study of this problem let us first observe that the word of God must not be entirely plain on this question, else why would there be so much difference of opinion even among those who know all that the Bible says? The question is debated even among Bible scholars. There is, therefore, room for doubt. The one and only in­fallibly safe course or conclusion, then, is one man for one woman and the two made into one or joined by Jehovah, never to be separated until death; or if separated, never marry another while the former partner lives. A careful study of all that the Bible says on this subject will lead us to sec just how much uncertainty there is about the ground for a divorce and second marriage. The fol­lowing passages give us just about all the Bible teaches on this point: And Jehovah God said. It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18.)

Ye 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. (Matthew 5:27-28.)

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whoso­ever shall put away his wile, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32.) 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 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. 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 because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:3-9.) And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. And he answered and said unto them. What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them. For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter. And he saith unto them. Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12.)

Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery. (Luke 16:18.) For the woman which hath an 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. (Romans 7:2-3.) But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11.) A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39.) From these quotations we see that it clearly was God’s purpose from the beginning for a man and a woman to be joined together for life. Nothing to put them asunder. But we are reminded that Jesus mentioned one exception. He intimated that if fornication is committed the guilty party may be divorced, or put away, and the innocent party may marry another and not be guilty of adultery. This certainly is implied in his language as given by Matthew. But Mark and Luke do not mention this exception. It is given twice in Matthew, but is never mentioned anywhere else. Paul did not seem to know that such an exception existed. He states emphatically that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, and if she be married to another while he lives (regardless of what he has done), she is an adulteress. This is exactly what Paul says.

We are told, however, that Paul’s language must not be made to contradict our Savior’s statement and that his words are plain. Of course, it will be admitted that if our Lord stated anything one time in unmistakable terms, that is enough to settle the question for all time to come. If his language is not misunderstood, he teaches that fornication will dissolve the marriage vow and leave the innocent party free to marry again.

Now, what is fornication? On this point the tract men­tioned above makes the following strong argument:

He told them further: "But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." Here we have fornication the only Bible ex­ception and reason for putting away a companion and marrying another one while the first one still lives. The same exception as given in Matthew 5:32, "fornication," not "adultery." They are different words and have a different application.

Unmarried persons commit fornication, but only married persons can violate the marriage covenant and commit adultery. In this one, only, exception Jesus mentions, the wrong act is committed before the woman is ever married, hence called "fornication." If committed after marriage, while living with her first husband, he would have called it "adultery"; the same as he called it when she remarried and was living with her second husband. Furthermore, he would not have used these two different words, "fornication" and "adultery," in the same verse if they meant the same thing.

It is vital that we should search out the meaning of these two words, and not risk our inheritance on a possible wrong understand­ing of them. Webster gives the primary meaning of "fornication" as the act of an unmarried person, and "adultery" as the act of a married person. The Bible makes a distinction between "fornication" and "adultery."

Matthew 15:19 : "Out of the heart proceedeth adulteries, fornica­tions," etc.

Galatians 5:19 : "The works of the flesh are adultery, fornication," etc.

Mark 7:21 : "From within proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, for­nications," etc.

1 Corinthians 7:2 : "To avoid fornication [not to avoid adultery], let every man have his own wife [get married]."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 : "Neither fornicators nor adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God." In John 8:41 the Pharisees told Jesus they were not born of forni­cation (out of wedlock), insinuating that he (Jesus) was. In Matthew 1:19 we find Joseph thought to put away the "Virgin Mary," thinking she was a fornicator. So we see a man may put away a woman when he finds out she was a fornicator, and not a virgin, when he married her. He finds an uncleanness in her. (Deuteronomy 24:1; also Deuteronomy 22:13-14; Deuteronomy 22:19.)

Marriage is a contract entered into by the man and the woman. The law of contracts requires that each should be qualified t o con­tract. The qualifications, essence of, and essential element in this case Jesus mentions is: that the woman should be a virgin (a chaste virgin, espoused to one husband—2 Corinthians 11:2), or a virtuous woman whose husband is dead. If she was a fornicator instead, she was guilty of "fraud" in contracting marriage, and this ’"fraud’" annuls the marriage and sets it aside as being "illegal, unscriptural," and the man being an innocent party was free to marry another woman, as he had not i nfact been really married. Had the woman confessed her sin of fornication to her intended husband before the marriage took place, she would have been clear and the marriage binding. In Bible type or symbol, the bride be­comes the bride of Christ by first confessing and forsaking sin. By making this distinction between "fornication and adultery," we are then enabled to see the harmony existing in the Scriptures on the subject of divorce, etc., and it clears up many Seeming con­tradictions, and makes plain the types and symbols used throughout the Bible.

According to this teaching, nothing that i s done after marriage will o r can break the vow. The author says that fornication is the act of an unmarried person. IS THIS CONCLUSION CORRECT? The teaching of this tract is much safer than the ordinary teaching on this question. In fact, no one will go wrong who follows this instruction, even if it is not technically correct.

It is true that fornication usually refers to unmarried persons and adultery to married people. The Scriptures do often mention the two words in close connection as indicat­ing separate sins, and both are severely condemned. But it seems to be going too far to say that this distinction always exists and that the words are never used interchangeably. This would be to make an arbitrary rule that would apply to only a very few words in our language. Nearly all words are used in different senses. In the Greek the word for "fornication" is "porneia," and the Greek word for "adultery" is "moicheia." They are de­fined in about the same language. The lexicons do not seem to make the radical distinction between these Greek words that Webster makes between the English words. Further­more, the distinction does not seem always to be recognized by the inspired writers. In Hosea (Hosea 2:2), we read that this prophet’s wife, the mother of his children (a married woman, of course), was guilty of whoredom. The word "whoredom" in the King James Version is "porneia" (for­nication) in the Septuagint. In the fifth chapter of First Corinthians Paul tells us that there was a flagrant case of fornication in that church. A man had his father’s wife.

Here we know that one party to this case of fornication was a married person. In Revelation (Revelation 2:20), we are told that the church at Thyatira had a woman—called "Jezebel" be­cause of her resemblance to that wicked woman of the Old Testament, no doubt—who taught the brethren to commit fornication. Some translations read "thy wife Jezebel." If this be correct, this woman was the wife of the angel or messenger of the church at Thyatira. A married woman, but guilty offornication, not adultery. The language of our Savior seems to show that a married person may commit fornication. He spoke of the pair as married and of their effort to dissolve the vow—to put away the married partner. He says a man cannot put away his wife, except for fornication. That certainly seems to show that a married person can be guilty of fornication. Jesus used "fornication" and "adultery" as synonyms in this pas­sage—at least, so it seems.

We shall have to look for some other way of harmonizing the language of Christ and of Paul. The explanation seems to lie in the fact that our Lord was discussing what would dissolve the marriage and thus violate the original purpose and law of marriage given by Jehovah in the beginning. Paul was not discussing any violations of this law, but merely setting forth the law. He set forth marriage as God intends for it to be—a man and a woman joined for life. This is God’s law, and this Jesus plainly taught. He showed that it can be broken, but the one who breaks it is bound for hell. Whenever, therefore, married people are even scripturally divorced, it means that at least one soul is sunk. In the name of the Lord, let us quit talking about scriptural divorce as though it were a light matter. N o divorce i s ever scriptural for both sides. When a marriage is broken, a soul is lost.

QUESTIONS ABOUT DIVORCE The article on "Divorce and Remarriage" in our issue of July 30 has provoked a number of questions. The first letter is from our good brother, R. C. White. Read what he says:

Georgetown, Tennessee, August 5,    1931.—Mr. G. C. Brewer,

Memphis, Tennessee.—Dear Brother Brewer: I have just finished your article, "Divorce and Remarriage," in the Gospel Advocate of July 30, 1931. There are several things I feel like mentioning, but will content myself with one or two—namely:

I want to endorse your teaching that "fornication" and "adul­tery" are sometimes used interchangeably in the Bible. I am much interested in your conclusion, and am anxious to know more about it. You suggest one new idea, if I understand you. Do you mean to say that there is no pardon for the guilty soul in a divorce? Even though a divorce is granted to the innocent party (and surely neither is altogether innocent, if we count indirect causes, though perfectly innocent so far as the marriage vow goes), and though it be granted that such a one may remarry and does, cannot the guilty one obey the gospel, or be restored if a Christian? Of course, I know no remarriage can be thought of. Please clear up this point.

Let me say "amen" to the statement, "Let us quit talking about scriptural divorce as though it were a light matter."

I did not mean to write even this much, but will be glad to hear from you in the paper.

Fraternally and gratefully,

R. C. WHITE.

Answering the questions, let us observe that the sin of breaking the marriage vow may be forgiven if it is repented of and if the guilty person sins "no more." If the man re­pents, his innocent companion should forgive him, and in that case no divorce would occur. But we spoke of a case where the divorce has occurred. Where that takes place and the innocent party has married another, there is no chance for the guilty party unless he repents of his sins and turns to God in the gospel way and then lives in absolute celibacy the rest of his days. As it is so improbable that one who has been weak enough to break his marriage vow will do this, we just counted such an unfortunate soul as lost. How­ever, it is not impossible for him to be saved.

Brother O. H. Cline, of Cordova, Alabama, writes the fol­lowing letter:

Dear Brother Brewer: This is to congratulate you on your com­position on divorce and second marriage. There is a question I would like to ask you concerning the same subject. You said that Paul’s language must not contradict that of the Savior. It seems to me that if Paul did teach differently on this or any other subject, in so doing he was guided by the Holy Spirit, which makes it law, and for a difference in the two laws to occur would not make it a matter of contradiction. Jesus, in Matthew, taught that under the law of Moses a man could put his wife away for the cause of forni­cation. The apostle, under the supervision of the Holy Spirit, did not teach the like in this the Christian era. Is it safe to teach (after rightly dividing the word of truth) that there is no such thing as remarriage, or being married twice? As quoted, Acts 2:42 teaches us to continue steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching, not in things behind the cross, which were of the law of Moses. The apostles never, with or without the Holy Spirit, taught that fornication or any other sin would permit a man to put away his wife.

If we are going behind the cross to get a reason for breaking marriage ties, then it seems that we would have an equal right to go back there to get us a scriptural reason for keeping the Sabbath.

I am deeply impressed with the thought that there is no reason whereby a man and a woman may break the marriage vows and stand justified before God in the same. I do not want to teach the wrong thing, and want to know if I am right.

Brother Cline has some good ideas, but he seems to be slightly confused on the proper division of the word. It is true that Jesus kept the law of Moses and taught his dis­ciples to do the same. It is also most certainly true that the law was abolished at the cross and ceased to be in effect after Pentecost. All things, therefore, that belonged to the types and ceremonies of the law were taken away and do not belong to Christians. Also all other laws—positive, divine laws—were abolished unless they are inculcated in the New Covenant. But our Savior taught many things that were not in the law, and these are binding upon us. He put his "I say" in contrast with what the law said. The law allowed divorce "for every cause," but Christ allows only one cause.

Paul does not contradict Christ. They agree upon what the will of God on marriage is: one man and one woman joined for life. Christ showed that a man may violate God’s law and break the vow. Paul only discussed the law, not any violations that might occur.

Questions from Brother John Craig, of Detroit, Michigan, will be given space in another issue.

MORE ABOUT DIVORCE The article on "Divorce and Remarriage" which appeared in our issue of July 30 brought in many letters. Some were congratulatory, some were critical, and others asked for more light. The divorce question is a living question of vital interest, and it is not at all surprising that any discussion of it would stir up some controversy, but it is surprising that people who have been reading the Gospel Advocate for many years would see in the article of July 30 anything new. The position taken in that article is the same position that the Advocate has held for more than fifty years, and it is the same position that is held by practically all the orthodox Protestant denominations. (By "orthodox" we mean those who accept Christ as divine and the Bible as inspired.) There was nothing at all in the article that was new or unusual, except the quotation from a tract which contended that fornication cannot be committed by a married person, and that, therefore, the only cause for divorce is an act committed before marriage. This was shown to be incorrect. If fornication dissolves a marriage, then it must be com­mitted by a married person. The following letter gives us an opportunity to correct some exceedingly fallacious reasoning in which others may share with the author of this letter. We print the letter in full:

Grand Rapids, Michigan.—Editor, Gospel Advocate.—Dear Broth­er: I have carefully read and reread the article written by Brother G. C. Brewer under date of July 30, and wish to have a plainer and more complete explanation of the subject. Brother Brewer closes his article with this statement: "A soul is lost."

Now, if Brother Brewer is correct, what is the matter with our preachers? In the first place, we know who Christ was talking to, and we know who Paul was talking to; but what I would like to know is, who is Brother Brewer talking to? Is he talking to Christians, or is he talking to the world? If he is talking to Christians, I feel he needs more study on the matter; for I know, if every preacher would adopt his teaching and hew close to the line, they would shake the very foundation of many of our churches of Christ. Many elders and deacons and some preachers would have to step down and out.

If he is putting himself up as an evangelist holding a meeting and talking to worldly people and exhorting them to give up their evil ways and come to Christ, does he use that good old hymn, "Just as I Am"? Does he forget Christ’s words, "Whosoever will may come"? Does he, when he gives the invitation and the hymn is being sung and those sinners walk down the aisles, ask these ques­tions: "Have you ever been married before?" "Are you a divorced person, and are you remarried to another husband or wife?" If not, why not?

If Brother Brewer’s theory is right, he must know these things before he performs the ordinance of baptism.

Now, I have supposed I was a member of the church of Christ for twenty years, and I have lived up to it just as well as I possibly could; have heard many good preachers and have seen many walk down the aisle, make the good confession, and be baptized, but never heard the above questions asked. Also, I have very carefully studied this matter during the past six months because of a hobby­riding preacher who nearly broke up our little congregation here. I have corresponded with some of our very best learned men on the subject, and I find that the majority of them are broad-minded enough to say it is a matter for the individual to settle for himself or herself.

There are already several divisions in the church of Christ. Why harp on this question and make another division when we are preaching unity?

I do not wish to criticize Brother Brewer in the matter, but I do think if he is going to handle the subject at all, he should make it as plain as A, B, C.

Very sincerely and prayerfully, CHARLES J. HAUGHEY.

216 Main Street, S. W.

REMARKS

We must always so preach the gospel that those who come to obey it will know that they cannot obey the gospel, cannot be forgiven and saved, unless they repent of their sins. And repentance requires them to get out of any un­lawful business in which they are engaged, to quit sinful habits or practices, and to break up any sinful relationship or alignment in which they are bound. This includes un­lawful marriages, of course. When repentance is thus preached, and when people respond to such preaching, there is only one question to be asked. All the rest is implied.

However strange or new it may be to the author of the letter, there have been many cases where the gospel preach­er has refused to baptize persons who were unscripturally married and who would not cease to live in this unholy relationship.

This is taken from "Queries and Answers," pages 282-­284. Read it all carefully: In a recent issue of the Gospel Advocate a question was asked about a woman who separated from A and B, then obeyed the gospel and lived a consistent member several years, then married C, when she was withdrawn from for living in adultery, and now wants to come back to the church. She wants to know what steps to take. You say: "I am afraid she has done too much marrying and separating ever to be saved." You make the impression on my mind that she is past redemption. I am seventy-one years old, have preached over twenty-seven years, have read the Advocate about thirty years, have helped to settle several such troubles, and I cannot harmonize your position with the Scriptures. Do you believe that she is a greater sinner than Saul of Tarsus, who persecuted the Son of God and called himself "chief of sinners," and yet obtained mercy (1 Timothy 1:13-16): or the Jews that crucified the Son of God, and were ottered remission of their sins (Acts 2:23; Acts 2:36; Acts 2:38)? John says: "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:7.) If the blood of Jesus "cleanseth us from all sin," the sin of the "chief of sinners" and murderers, will it not also cleanse from adultery? The questioner does not state what she separated from her first husband for, so how do we know but what she had the "one cause"? I lived in the sectarian world about forty-two years, and I found very few men but what their wives could have proven the "one cause," if they could have secured the right witnesses to testify. Is a sinner, a citizen of the devil’s kingdom, subject to the law of Christ? My understanding of the Scriptures is that a citizen of the world is not under the law of Christ, but is under the law of our land; and if a woman gets a legal divorce from her husband, she has a right to marry again, and is not living in adultery, accord­ing to the laws of our land. If she then obeys the gospel, all of her past sins are blotted out, washed away, and will be remembered against her no more forever. If I do not misunderstand you, your position brings the sin she committed in separating from her first husband over into the church. How can a sin be blotted out, washed away, and still be held against her? This is a very important QUES­tion. To this Brother Lipscomb replied: This quitting one man or woman and taking up with another ought not to be called marriage. This was a more demoralizing plea than usual, so I publish and notice.

There are many worse sinners than was Paul or the crucifiers of the Son of God. Paul said he was "chief of sinners," but said that he obtained pardon because he "did it ignorantly in unbelief." (1 Timothy 1:13.) He was chief of those who sinned ignorantly. There were sins for which there was no forgiveness. Those who committed these sins were worse sinners than Paul or the murderers of Christ, and the apostle declared that the rulers crucified him "in ignorance." (Acts 3:17.) Then there are pretending Christians who "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Hebrews 6:6.) It is impossible to renew that class of repentance. They are much worse than Paul or the murderers of God’s Son. Those who betray and maltreat and corrupt the spiritual body of Christ are worse sinners and more hopeless than those who crucified his fleshly body. Those who knowingly and willfully change, add to, or take from the commands of God are more hopeless and worse sinners than Paul or the murderers of God’s Son, who sinned ig­norantly and repented.

Some sins were not even to be prayed for. The reckless repeti­tion of a sin adds to its enormity. I know nothing of the case criti­cized, save that the woman, without scriptural ground, married and unmarried and remarried with such reckless disregard to the law of God or common virtue and decency as to destroy her sense of right, and there is no foundation on which to found a Christian life or to build a Christian character. A person is then in a hopeless condition. Only a good and honest heart can produce good fruit. Whom does the blood of Christ cleanse from sin? Only those who obey his laws, only those who repent of their sins. This woman married a man, left him, took up with another, left him, and while separated obeyed the gospel, and the writer says that she lived a consistent life until another fellow came along who was willing, and she took up with him, and while with him now wants to come back to the church. It ought not to be called marrying. The case as stated is that the woman did the separating without scriptural ground. If so, I deny that the blood of Christ cleansed her from any of her sins. She did not repent. Had she repented, she would have sought to live with her scriptural husband. She was not only guilty of adultery herself, but was guilty of tempting her husband to adultery by refusing to be a wife to him. (Matthew 5:32.) These things are true, not of that woman alone, but of every man and woman who refuses to discharge the marriage duties to the one to whom married. If they separate and one becomes a Christian, the first thing to do is to seek reconciliation and try to live with the unbeliever. The idea that God takes no cognizance of the sinful lives and states they enter before becoming Christians, and they are all blotted out and forgotten when baptized, and the person may persist in the same course afterwards, is contrary to the truth and most demoraliz­ing. Read 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 and see there that the marriage between sinners is recognized as sacred. The man is sanctified to the woman, the woman to the man, else your children are unclean. It seems to me that is on a par with saying that a man might steal a fortune before he obeys the gospel. God does not deal with him then, but the civil law. He then obeys the gospel, all his sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, and he is left in the possession of his ill- gotten gains. God forgives no sin until it is repented of and undone to the extent of the ability of the penitent person. The writer of the above, in a private note, says that he knows a preacher who married a woman while his fust wife was living. He now wishes to get rid of the second one to take up with a third one. He thinks he uses the position I advocate as an excuse for this. Paul could not prevent hypocrites from perverting most sacred truths for wicked purposes. Neither can I. But the man who could use a truth for an end so base is unfit to associate with penitentiary con­victs. That people could retain a man who would so act in a church shows how low their estimate of Christianity is. SHALL WE MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO GOD’S LAW?

There has been quite enough said in this department in recent weeks on the divorce question, and we do not want to wear our readers out by continually haggling over this issue; but a brother in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is not sat­isfied with what has been said, and he is considerably dis­turbed because of some particular case he has in mind in which he says the teaching of the Scriptures as set forth by the Gospel Advocate could not be applied. For this reason and for the additional reasons that his letter presents some points that have not been discussed and gives us an oppor­tunity to advance some ideas that are applicable to questions other than divorce, we are giving space to some questions that it raises.

1. The brother says different preachers of equal ability will give different and conflicting interpretations or ex­planations. That may be true on some points, but it is not true o n the divorce question. Bible scholars are agreed on what the Scriptures teach on that issue, except some con­tend that divorce is not allowed on any ground at all and others say Jesus allowed divorce on the ground of fornica­tion. No Bible scholar, or even Bible student, will say that the Bible allows divorce on any other grounds. (By divorce we mean such separation as will allow either party to marry again.)

It should be remembered that the same argument is always presented by those who do not want to obey God’s law. When we show people that God requires baptism as a condition of pardon, many of them are ready to say: "Well, why do so many smart men differ on this question?" etc. Who has not met that objection? "Smart men" do not differ as to what the Bible teaches. They differ in their opinions as to whether it is necessary strictly to follow its teaching. We should be careful to distinguish at this point.

2. In your article of July 30, 1931, you speak of "scriptural di­vorce." Well, if there is a scriptural divorce, there must be a scrip­tural marriage. Is there not? Will you tell the readers of the Gospel Advocate what constitutes a scriptural marriage? They are entitled to know. They take the paper to get information on the Bible. Jacob worked seven years for Rachel for a wife, and then her father deceived him and gave him Leah instead; then he worked seven years more for Rachel. Which one was his scriptural wife, the one he wanted or the one which was forced on him? King Solomon was the wisest king Israel ever had because he asked God to give him wisdom instead of riches; and God blessed him and gave him both, so that he was the wisest and richest king. Which one of the seven hundred women which were called "wives" of Solomon was his scriptural wife? This wisest of kings said: "It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman." (Proverbs 21:9.) Again he said: "It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a con­tentious and an angry woman." (Proverbs 21:19.) Again: "A con­tinual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike." (Proverbs 27:15.) And this same wise king said: "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband." (Proverbs 12:4.) "Her price is far above rubies." (Proverbs 31:10.) "Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. . . . She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness." (Proverbs 31:23-27.) Solomon obtained this wisdom from the Lord; therefore, it was inspired, or so I understand it; and having so many wives, he surely knew women. The brother asks us to define scriptural marriage. Scriptural marriage is the blending of the lives of two eligible persons of opposite sex into one through mutual agreement, legal contract, and sexual cohabitation. The union is further confirmed, scaled, and exemplified in the offspring. In that the two are literally become one flesh, and no power can separate their blood as long as their de­scendants survive. In this sense marriage is a status or con­dition which, though originating in a contract, is not capable of being terminated by the parties’ rescission of the con­tract, because the interests of the state, of society, of the children, to say nothing of regard for God’s law, require the affixing of certain permanent duties and obligations upon the parties. This ought to be as clear as A, B, C, but we should not overlook the word "eligible" in the above definition. A person who cannot perform marriage functions is not eligi­ble. A person who has a living wedded companion is not eligible. That is why Brother Lipscomb said the union of divorced persons is not marriage. We agree. That we may see that this is exactly what is set forth by our Savior as God’s law "from the beginning," we here quote J. W. Mc- Garvey’s comments on Matthew 19:4-6 : The argument contained in his answer presents the following premises and conclusions: First, in the beginning God made a male and a female, and said:"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife." (4, 5; comp. Genesis 2:24.) Now the relation to father and mother can be dissolved only by death: yet the marriage relation is more intimate than that, and its obligations are more binding. Second, in the same sentence (Genesis 2:24) God said: "They shall be one flesh." If they are one flesh, the relation can be dissolved only by death, which dissolves the body itself. Third, from these premises the conclusion follows (verse 6) that what God has thus joined together, man shall not put asunder. Of course, God, who joined them together, may put them asunder by prescribing the conditions of lawful divorce, but man has nothing to do in the case except to obey God’s law. Any act of divorce, therefore, or any legislation by state or church on the subject, inconsistent with the divine law, is open rebellion against the authority of Christ.

How dare any of us to say that men may put asunder what God has joined together?

3. The reference to Jacob and Solomon cannot nullify the Savior’s words. Moreover, neither one of these men can serve as an example for us on marriage. They were both polygamists—which God did not authorize "from the be­ginning." We have no case parallel to Jacob and Leah. Such a forced marriage would not meet the requirements of the above definition. If we say Rachel was Jacob’s wife because he wanted her and Leah was not his wife because he preferred Rachel, we open the way for any sensualist who has grown tired of his wife to put her away on any pretext and take up with his "affinity"—which would be any "new flame" who excited his passions. That is exactly the "affinity" argument. Which one of the seven hundred women would our brother say was Solomon’s wife? Let him answer. Will he say that more than one was his wife and thus endorse polygamy? If not, which one was his wife? The truth is, Solomon did not have any wife. He could not be one flesh with any one woman after he was joined to so many. He was too promiscuous to be capable of a scriptural marriage. If he was scripturally joined to his first woman companion, then she was his wife until he undid it by his promiscuity. We must say again that we cannot take Solomon or Jacob as an example for a Christian hus­band. Our brother surely knows this. Yes, Solomon knew women; and if men would heed his instruction before they are joined to any woman, they would do well. But most men, like Solomon, insist on learning by experience. Solo­mon said a "worthy woman" is hard to find, and we will all agree that there are many of the other kind; but the women have a tale to tell themselves. Court records will show that most divorces are sued for by women, and in many cases they sue only because they need the law to force the man to support them. But there are bad cases on both sides. Solomon was inspired, but his conduct was not divine by any means.

The difference between our teaching on murder, drunken­ness, etc., and divorce is not as great as our brother seems to think it is. It is true that the state recognizes divorce and sanctions the marriage of divorced persons. That far the argument has force. Though some states will not grant divorce at all. But all gospel preachers stand in the pulpit and tell their audiences that persons who are divorced for any cause except fornication and marry again are living in adultery. What sort of preaching has our brother been hearing? Gospel preachers have always preached that way. They not only preach it along with faith, repentance, and baptism, but it is included in repentance. The Gospel Ad­vocate has preached that for more than a half century. All Christian parents so teach their children. Nearly all the denominations hold this view and preach it. The Catholic Church does not allow divorce at all. The Episcopal Church does not allow divorce, except for fornication, and will not allow her ministers to say the ceremony for divorced per­sons. The Methodist Church holds the same view and has the same law. How does our brother make out the claim that this is new, untaught, or unheard of? Even advocates of free love, companionate marriage, etc., know this well, and they spend most of their time complaining at and clamoring against this teaching of "the church." Yet our brother supposes that the world in general is ignorant on this point.

Why did you not give what Jesus answered the disciples in Matthew 19:10? Read on down to Matthew 19:13 : "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: . . . and there aresome eunuchs, whichweremade eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which havemadethemselves eunuchsfor the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him re­ceive it." Evidently those who cannot understand your teaching are not eunuchs. Your answer did not make your teaching plain as A, B, C, neither did Brother Lipscomb’s. The Bible teaches that there is only one unpardonable sin, and so we teach. But the Bible also teaches that any sin persisted in, unrepented of, will damn the soul. Does our brother wish to be understood as teaching that a man can live in adultery, refuse to break the relation, die in sin, and go to heaven? Because there is only one unpardonable sin, are we to infer that no other sin will damn? That all others will be pardoned unconditionally? That is the logic of our brother’s argument. This fallacy is very hurtful and dan­gerous. Beware, brother! As to what our Lord says about eunuchs, we beg leave to quote from Brother McGarvey again: The answer of Jesus to the objection of the disciples is con­fessedly obscure. In searching for its meaning, the first thing to be determined is the reference of the expression, "this saying." It must refer either to the saying of the disciples (verse 10), "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry," or to the saying of Jesus in his answer to the Pharisees. It cannot refer to the former, because that saying was objectionable, and the saying in question is one that should be received; for Jesus says (verse 12), "He that is able to receive it." It must, then, refer to his own saying in answer to the Pharisees. His entire speech to the Pharisees is a unit, and its point of unity is the remark that the married couple are one flesh. It is this which makes the marital relation more intimate than that of parent and child, and that makes it wrong to put asunder those whom God has thus joined together. (Verses 5, 6.) Now, Jesus says of this saying, "Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given"—that is, they to whom it is given to receive it. This implies that the greater part of men do, and that those who do not are the exceptions. Eunuchs are then introduced as an exceptional class. They cannot receive the saying, because a eunuch cannot become "one flesh" with a woman; and, seeing that his marriage would be a nullity, separation after such a marriage would not be the divorce which Jesus forbids, nor would subsequent marriage on the woman’s part be adultery. Jesus admits, then, that, so far as eunuchs are concerned, it is good not to marry, because his doctrine cannot be received or be made prac­tical in their cases; but he insists that all shall receive it and abide by it who can and do enter really into marriage.

We see, therefore, that the law of marriage and divorce as set forth herein is applicable to everybody except eunuchs, or ineligibles.

Our brother gives us a case—supposed or real, the prin­ciple is the same—where to apply the law of Christ would break up a home and rob eight children of the care of their parents. No Christian would want to break up such a home, and most of us would be slow to say that the law of Christ demands it. Other duties, obligations, and laws of the Lord come into the equation now and have to be dealt with. Certainly no one, not even the strictest literalist or legalist, would demand that the children be scattered and neglected or that the woman be cast out and not supported. No law of God can be correctly interpreted as giving a man permis­sion ruthlessly to violate other divine laws. The man in this case owes an obligation to the children and to their mother, even if he had not been legally married to her. Our civil laws recognize this, and in some states, when a man lives with a woman for a stipulated length of time, she becomes his "common-law" wife and a legal heir to his estate.

If a man is living in adultery with a woman, all the law of Christ requires is that he cease the adultery—cease to cohabit with her. It does not demand that he mistreat her; other Christian principles forbid it. In the case our brother mentions (if the man is not scripturally married to the mother of his eight children, a point on which we do not presume to say yea or nay), all that the man and woman need to do is to cease to live in marriage relation. The world does not need to know this. The children do not need to be told. The man could become a eunuch—not by emascula­tion, but by celibacy—for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Is not salvation worth it? But even then the man might in some degree be re­sponsible for his first wife’s soul and for the soul of the one who marries her. We will have to let God untangle cases of this kind, while we do our best to keep others out of such a situation. We would well be careful about what exactions we make in such, a case. Certainly n o church should divide over such a n affair. Any church would be foolish to under­take to "discipline" such a man as our brother presents. Such a course could not do any good at all, and it would be sure to do untold harm. But this should not in the least deter us in teaching what God says. We should labor to prevent others from making a similar mistake and getting into such a tangle. Because we find difficulty in applying God’s law in a particular case is no reason for ignoring, nullifying, or changing the law. This is another common fallacy. When we show that baptism is a condition of pardon and quote the words of Christ and the Holy Spirit, some preachers will begin trying to suppose a case where baptism would be impossible. Suppose such a case exists—and they do often—does that change the law? Does that justify those who can obey the law in ignoring it? There is a vast difference between those who would obey the law and cannot and those who can and will not. There may be exceptions to all of God’s laws, but in the nature of things we have to let God make the exceptions. When we teach God’s law on marriage faithfully, our duty stops. We cannot force people to obey it. We should teach it fearlessly in this dissolute age.

"MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE"

Under the caption of "Marriage and Divorce," Mr. Ed­ward Worcester, chaplain of the Texas State Tubercular Sanatorium, of Sanatorium, Texas, writes in "The Chaser," a monthly bulletin, the following editorial:

"What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

I am reluctant to discuss a subject which is certain to provoke controversy, regardless of what views are expressed. There is prob­ably no human relation about which there is more diversity of opinion, and I shall make no claim of infallibility for my own thought concerning marriage and divorce.

It seems to me that true marriage is a great deal more than a legalized conjugal union between a man and a woman. The law cannot join them together except in a legal sense. The Lord alone can fully unite two individuals in a true marriage, and he does it with profound mutual love and respect. This love must be far more than the reproduction urge. True marriage never rests on such a flimsy and transitory foundation. There must be also an earnest mutual respect and admiration for those elusive factors that make up personality. These qualities endure and seldom undergo any radical changes or modifications. They make up a lasting foundation for true marriage. Happy indeed are those whose marriages were made in heaven and by the infinite Father.

Many true and lasting marriages grow out of legal unions that begin with little more than strong mutual desire, but thousands of others inevitably fail when their foundations begin to weaken. They are never joined together by God at all and their unions are little more than legalized adulteries recognized by society. We know that lawful regulation and marriage ceremonies are absolutely essen­tial for the protection of society and the rights of children, but haven’t we expected the law of man to do a work which God alone can perform?

If the Lord does not join them in the bonds of true and sacred love, they are never really and truly married, except in the legal sense, regardless of how long they may live together, or how many children may be born to them. Since the law alone has joined to­gether these merely legal unions, let the law grant them separations or divorces when they find themselves mismated, unhappy, and de­sirous of their freedom. Man alone has united them; let man sep­arate them when the situation becomes intolerable. They always suffer enough from their hasty blunders. So let us not insist that the misery be prolonged for life under the delusion that God has joined them and their union is therefore sacred and permanent. Those united by the Lord do not seek divorces.

Dr. E. O. Deal, of Mertzon, Texas, sent this clipping to me "with the request that it be reviewed in the Gospel Advocate. What is said by this chaplain is the same thing that is being said by every apologist for divorce. And there­in is the evil. If this were said for the purpose of making men and women more careful in entering into the marriage relationship instead of justifying them in breaking the bonds, it would not be objectionable.

Like all the more dangerous errors, this plea has enough truth mixed with it to make it specious and palliative. It is said on every hand that God would not expect a man and a woman to live together in conjugal union when they hate each other; that it is immoral for a man and a woman to cohabit when their relation is not sanctified by love. But the question that we would ask is, How came the man and the woman who hate each other to be bound together in marriage? The answer, of course, is: They once desired each other and thought they were in love, but later they find out that they do not love each other. But another question arises: Have they ceased to desire and to need marriage companionship? No, they have not. Then why do they no longer desire each other? The answer is, They desire someone else. Either they, one or both of them, have already become infatuated with someone else or they are in love with some ideal—some imaginary perfect person; someone that will be different; that will not have the faults and annoying habits or mannerisms that the present partner has. But suppose we grant that such a feeling or attitude is a just cause for divorce and set such persons free, will they find that ideal person and be satisfied with their next choice? If we had to answer that question from a purely philosophic and psychologic basis, we would say: "No, they will not be satisfied." But we have actual experience on which to base an answer. In this day of easy divorce we see the matter tried out. Most of those who get one divorce keep on getting them until it becomes a habit. Therefore, men and women should know that the disposition to find fault with each other should be overcome; that maudlin restlessness and morbid hankering for something they do not have and should not have must not be countenanced. It does not comport with sound sense. It is evidence of a diseased mind. Such a person is a neuropathic individual. Such a disposition will make a person dissatisfied and un­successful in any line. Any work is better than the work he is doing; any place is better than the place where he is, etc. But it is said that sometimes one partner in the marriage partnership will behave in such a way toward the other as to destroy love and alienate this one. Even so; but both should be taught the same lessons. That is, each should respect the other, be thoughtful of the other, show defer­ence to the other, forbear and be long-suffering toward the other. Where each does this, there will not be any trouble. Our chaplain says we should not expect a law of man to do a work which God alone can perform. No, we should not; but we certainly do have a right to expect all chaplains and other preachers and moralists to teach young people that they should calmly and deliberately determine whether or not they have the feeling for each other and the attitude toward each other that God requires a husband and a wife to have before they invoke the law of man or submit to a legal ceremony. Then they must be taught that when they do take this deliberate step they are bound together for life. If they understand that, they will give and take, bear and forbear, and grow into each other’s lives in the way that God intends that they should.

Let us suppose a case. A man is cast upon a lonely island after a shipwreck. At first he seems to be the only living human being upon the island, a true Robinson Crusoe. But later he finds that a woman from the same ship was also cast upon the island; a woman of his own race. They are stran­gers; they never saw each other before they met upon the island. They soon find that they are the only human in­habitants of the island. After a time, hope of ever being rescued dies and they become resigned to the idea of spend­ing their lives together and alone, so far as other human beings are concerned. Can anyone believe that a normal man and a normal woman would not under such circum­stances become real companions and find consolation and comfort and strength in such a companionship? They might be very different at first. They might have come from dif­ferent stations in life and might have entirely different ideas and views, but they would become adjusted to each other and each would help the other.

O,but someone suggests that necessity would be upon that pair and they would, of course, make the best of their situation. That is the point. Then, if we can make husbands and wives see that they must, by the necessity of God’s requirements and by the necessity of their family’s needs and by the necessity of their soul’s salvation, dwell together in mutual helpfulness and companionship, they will make the best of their situation also. It is only because they feel free from restraint and responsibility and exempt from censure and disgrace and eternal damnation that men and women run to the divorce courts every time they meet a magnetic person of the opposite sex and see an opportunity for a fresh adventure in carnality. The chaplain says: "If the Lord does not join them in the bonds of true sacred love, they are never really and truly married, except in the legal sense, regardless of how long they may live together, or how many children may be born to them." When men argue simply for the purpose of justifying a popular practice and of pleasing the people, they never are consistent and they never go to the bottom of a question. For instance, it is usually argued that if a man lives with a woman and has children by her, she thereby becomes his wife whether there has been a legal ceremony or not. But now we are told that such a pair are not married, i f there has been a legal ceremony. In the chaplain’s own state the law recognizes a "common-law" marriage. If a man and woman live together for three years in Texas, whether they have children or not, the law recognizes them as married and the woman can claim a wife’s protection and support. She is an heir to his property, etc. The "common-law" idea comes nearer being scriptural than the chaplain’s theory. It is true that men and women can be married legally when they are not married scrip­turally; but the only time that it is safe to say that this is the case is when they were not marriageable scripturally at the time the legal ceremony was performed.

Next week we shall discuss this question: How Does God Join a Man and Woman Together in Wedlock?

HOW DOES GOD JOIN A MAN AND WOMAN TOGETHER IN WEDLOCK? Our Texas chaplain says: "If the Lord does not join them in the bonds of true and sacred love, they are never really and truly married, except in the legal sense, regardless of how long they may live together, or how many children may be born to them." In this he seems to go a step further than the advocates of "companionate marriage"; for they make a distinction between "companion marriage" and "family marriage," and they claim that couples that have children are out of the companionate-marriage class. Under the chaplain’s theory a man and a woman may at any period of life, no matter how long they have lived together or how many children they have, decide that they have never been joined together by God, and therefore separate and each marry another to whom he or she feels joined by "true and sacred love”! A few questions should be answered here: What is "true and sacred love,” and how will a man and a woman be able to determine when God has joined them in this holy passion? Are they left to decide it wholly by their feeling for or toward each other? When a pair has lived together for a long period and had children born to them, is it not reasonable to suppose that they, at least at first, had a feeling for each other that they thought was true and sacred love? Do not all couples think they have this love for each other? Then, if they were mistaken the first time, how will they know that they are not mistaken the next time? If they have to live together in the marriage relation for a while in order to ascertain whether or not God has joined them in the bonds of true and sacred love, what i s that but trial marriage? And does that not make trial marriage or marriages, one or several, essential to a real or permanent marriage? Is it not true that such ex­perimentations in love and sex affairs disqualify rather than qualify men and women for true and sacred love? Is not true love to be measured by something other than feeling, sentiment, romance, or passion?

These questions bring us to a discussion of the question that heads this article: "How does God join a man and woman together in wedlock?" This will be answered in the following propositions:

WERE THEY REALLY MARRIED? The following letter from a brother in Ohio asks some questions and presents a problem. Here is his case: A young lady at the age of seventeen married a man according to the law of a certain state, lived with him sixty days, and left him. According to her evidence, she left him because she did not love him —did not love him when she married him. She was advised to marry him by other members of her family, and she did so thinking she would get a home for herself and her sister, with no intention of making him a life companion, but to leave him if she was not successful. She was not successful and left him within two months; said she was sorry she took the step in five minutes after the cere­mony. Did God join them together, or did Satan join them? Was that a scriptural marriage—a union to be severed by death only?

Some years pass. She marries a different man, whose former wife was dead and leaving him with two children, this man being a member of the church. Before this time she was not a member of any church and knew practically nothing of the church. She becomes as a mother to these children, also a member of the church, and helps in bringing up the children accordingly, living peaceably together as a family and peaceably in the church.

Another member learns of her former marriage, takes the posi­tion that they are living in adultery, and urges withdrawing fellow­ship from them unless they cease living together as man and wife. It was considered by the leading members, and they decided not to withdraw. No accusation whatever except her first marriage. Since learning more of the Bible and becoming a member of the church, she does not believe that God ever joined her to the first man as his wife and refuses to be separated from her present husband. Are the conditions sufficient grounds for withdrawing fellowship from them? Should it be brought against them?

It caused some confusion and resulted in causing them to stop attending worship, and they refuse to attend as long as the ones attend who pressed the matter of withdrawal. Would the congrega­tion be justifiable in withdrawals, if to do so would cause disturb­ance? What would be the scriptural procedure now? In case their returning would cause the family, who so urged the matter, to stay away, then what?

1. A Serious Lesson on the Sanctity of Marriage. The chief purpose of all our teaching on marriage and divorce is to prevent such mistakes as the young sister made in this case. What shall we do with those who have already made a mistake, or what shall we teach them? No general rule can be laid down. If this poor girl of seventeen had been properly taught on the sacredness of the marriage vow and on the permanency of the marital union, she would never have made this mistake. She would have known that the attitude of her heart was not scriptural and that the vows were untrue. We must teach the young.

2. Were They Really Married? The sister thinks now, since she has learned what real marriage is, that she was never married to the man with whom she lived for sixty days. If she is now an honest and sincere Christian, her word should have great weight on this point, since she knows better than anyone else can know what was the condition of her heart at the time of the other legal marriage cere­mony. She should be warned against trying to justify her­self and urged to be honest in striving to meet the con­ditions demanded by the word of God. But shall we agree that she was not really married to the first man? This is a question that we cannot answer with absolute finality, any more than we can say with infallible certainty that a person has or has not been bap­tized scripturally when that person has submitted to the scriptural form of baptism. Let those who are insisting that this sister and her husband be put out of the fellowship answer these questions: If this sister should tell you that when she was baptized she did it for some earthly or tem­poral benefit, with the set intention in her heart of renounc­ing her baptism and ceasing to follow the Lord if these temporal benefits did not follow according to expectation, and that she later saw that such a baptism was not scrip­tural and that she was then baptized sincerely in obedience to God’s word, would you insist that her first baptism was scriptural and that the second was a farce? Of course, you would not. But is not her case very similar?

Or, again, suppose this girl had lived with a man sixty days without a marriage ceremony as an experiment, would you insist that she is his wife and could not repent of her sin, leave the man (repentance would include that), and then later be scripturally married to another man? No. Then what makes a marriage—a mere legal ceremony?

3. What Is the Purpose of a Withdrawal? In withdraw­ing fellowship from any member of the body of Christ, what do we hope to accomplish? Do we wish good or evil to come as a result? Of course, all Christians wish for good results. Very well, what good can come from a withdrawal that divides the church? The purpose of church discipline is twofold. First, it corrects the evil and brings the evildoer to repentance and thereby saves his soul. (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Thessalonians 3:14.) But in this case the accused persons do not acknowledge their guilt; no one can prove positively that they are guilty; and, therefore, they cannot be brought to repentance until they are first convicted. Second, it purifies the church, or puts sin out of the sanction and con­nivance of the disciples. (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 5:13.) But in this case the persons in question do not confess guilt, and the others cannot convict them beyond a question. Moreover, what they are accused of does not bring public reproach upon the church, for their lives are correct in every respect except the relationship which some church members theoretically condemn. In the eyes of the law the relationship is regular and legal. In the eyes of the world it is respectable and righteous. Possibly very few would even know anything of past mistakes if their brethren in Christ did not dig them up for display.

Brethren must have a very anomalous idea of what it takes to honor Christ, save souls, and glorify God, if they imagine that they can take punitive action in a case like this. It could not correct any wrong that may exist. It would disrupt the church and alienate brethren and bring reproach on the cause and discourage and disgust young people. If some one or two insist that such action must be taken or else they will quit the church, that very threat is evidence that they are more interested in carrying their point and enforcing their idea than they are in saving these souls and honoring Christ. In enforcing the will of Christ, disciples cannot be arbitrary, dictatorial, and imperious. They must be full of meekness (Galatians 6:1-2), long-suffering , patience, and prayer (1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Timothy 5:22; James 5:16; James 5:19-20; 1 John 5:14-16).

It would not be at all wrong for brethren to tell this sister that they believe she was not scripturally divorced and that they think that she and the brother who is now her husband are living in sin. If brethren feel that way about it and are actually concerned for their salvation, they should speak to them; but they should manifest a tender solicitude for them and not try to exact something of them. They will have done their duty. So let it rest.

Suppose the sister and brother should separate, could the brother find another wife? Would he not be charged with leaving this woman without scriptural cause? Could she go back to the man with whom she lived for sixty days? If her marriage to him was ever scriptural, has it not now been broken up? Better serve God in humility and conse­cration, and leave such problems to him.

LINE UPON LINE, PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT, HERE A LITTLE, THERE A LITTLE

Once again we are called upon to answer some questions that relate to, or grow out of, the divorce question. One thing should be kept in mind always when we come to study what God’s word teaches on the question of marriage and divorce: W e are not primarily concerned with problems that men have brought upon themselves by not knowing or not heeding God’s word, but we are first and most fervently interested i n what God’s law actually is. If there are cases where God’s law cannot be applied or obeyed, then God himself will have to dispose of them according to his wisdom. If there are some people who have involved themselves in such a marriage mess that even Solomon could not tell them how to extricate themselves, the only thing they can do is to apply the principles of righteousness as far as possible, and let God decide the rest.

This depends entirely on what laws you have reference to. There are some things taught in the Bible that apply only to Christians, but these relate to the Christian’s duty and privilege toward God and apply only to him because his relationship to God is different from that of other men. Moral principles apply to all alike. Truths that God has revealed to the human race are the truths by which the human race will be judged. (John 12:48; John 15:22; Romans 2:12.) If the laws of God and of Christ do not apply to aliens, then why do aliens sin when they reject and violate these laws? If they do not sin in such rejection and violation, then in what do their sins consist? Can there be sin with­out law? (Romans 5:13.) Why is God’s wrath revealed against the unrighteousness of men, if these men are not responsible for this unrighteousness because they have re­fused to walk according to the principles of righteousness? (Romans 1:18.) Remember that God’s law concerning mar­riage was given in the beginning of man’s life on the earth, and it has been God’s will on the subject in all ages and applicable to all men, whether men have respected it or not. (Matthew 19:3-10.)

The idea that there is some sort of literal record kept in heaven of anyone’s deeds is perhaps only fanciful, but it represents a truth often taught in the Scriptures. Indeed, this truth is taught by that very figure of a book—a record. This record seems to include all men. The wise man said: "God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:14.) Our Lord said: "Every idle word that men [not Christians only| shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36.) In that judgment picture given by Christ in Matthew twenty-five those upon the left are reminded of the good deeds they did not do. Also the rich man was reminded of his former life and of Lazarus’ former state. Some sort of account of these things had been kept. If murderers, idolaters, fornicators, and liars are to be thrust out of the city, the memory or account of these sins is implied. (Revelation 21:8.) Don’t get too technical in your divisions and application of God’s word. Remember the Pharisees. They made void God’s word with their traditions.

This man should "steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need." (Ephesians 4:28.) Second, he should make restitution, if possible—pay back what he has taken wrongfully. Repentance always includes restitution as far as possible. Read Paul’s letter to Philemon and get a lesson on this point. Restitution is not always possible. We cannot in any case undo our sins; we must depend upon God’s grace and mercy for forgiveness. In­cidentally, if God’s law against stealing does not apply to an alien, why would an alien need to repent of stealing and make restitution? All repentance is toward God, not toward the state, and it must be brought about by godly sorrow.

This man transgressed the law of God when he put away his wife without scriptural cause. When he married again, he committed adultery; and when his wife married another man, she committed adultery. If she was guilty of "cruelty" or in any other way caused her husband to leave her, she is not only responsible for her own sin, but she is also par­tially responsible for his. If she was not at all in fault and her husband put her away because of his infatuation for another woman, then she is not at all responsible for his sin, but he is for her sin. He caused her to commit adultery. But that does not excuse her. Four persons are guilty of adultery in this case. Read your New Testament. What should he do to repent? The thing that would be right with­out question or doubt—the infallibly safe thing—would be for all four of them to separate and live in celibacy the rest of their lives, each, however, bearing an equitable share of responsibility for the children and for the women, financial responsibility included, of course. It will probably never be possible to get the four persons involved to consent to this course. But the man originally responsible for the whole affair, if he is the one who wants to obey God, may follow this course, regardless of whether the others will or not. He should tell them of his sins in this matter, show them what God says, and make known to them what his decision is, and let them do as they will.

While this would certainly be the safe course, it is not affirmed that it would be absolutely necessary for the man to leave his second wife, mother of his children, and live in celibacy. This man committed adultery when he married the second woman. His wife committed adultery when she married another man. But now it may be that these adulteries have so completely undone the first marriage that it could not again exist; could not be resumed. Indeed, we believe it could not. And it may be that faithfulness in the other union (if such has been the case) and parenthood have now so joined these two that God would not expect or require them to separate. He would certainly require them to live righteous lives after they come to him; to abhor and teach against their former sins. This may b e the case. God alone knows, and we must leave him to decide. We should teach what God says and let the persons involved make their own application and decision in this matter. We should then encourage them to do all else that God says, regardless of what they decide about separating, since we cannot know exactly how God would regard this particular case. THE DIVORCE PROBLEM

There has been a good deal said on the question of divorce in this department in the last three years, but the question will not down. There is no problem that we face today that is as dangerous as this problem. The ideas of the people around us are so lax and confused and their practices are so far away from the scriptural ideal that we need not be surprised if many of our own people become entangled in marital mix-ups. Nor should we be surprised if we find that many of our young people have wrong ideas about the marriage vows. They read much that is wrong in the papers and magazines; they see much that is immoral on the picture screens; and they hear the wrong sort of teaching in their social contacts and often in the schoolrooms. If we do not, therefore, consistently and persistently set forth the teaching of God’s word on this question, we cannot expect young disciples to know what God teaches. This question also demands frequent discussion, because many of our people have already departed from the teaching of God’s word and become involved in divorce pro­ceedings. Nearly every church in the land has in its mem­bership persons who have been divorced and have married a second time. This brings a problem to the church, and often elders and other members of the church come to the editors of religious papers for advice and help. The problem also demands discussion, because of the misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches on the question. This failure to properly investigate, collate, and analyze all the Bible teaches on this question causes disagreement among some teachers and preachers. Some hold that forni­cation dissolves the marriage vow and gives the innocent party a right to be married to another. This conclusion is based on what Christ himself said. Others think that this belonged only to those living under the law of Moses and under the Christian dispensation nothing but death can separate married persons in a way that would permit a second marriage. They base their argument for this con­clusion upon the teaching of Paul. Now, anyone who reads thoughtfully what Christ says and then reads what Paul says will have to admit that some explanation is needed. There is an apparent conflict, yet a complete analysis will show that there is no real conflict. It is our purpose to dis­cuss in this article, and one or two that shall follow this, the problem of harmonizing the teaching of Christ and Paul. We shall endeavor to give a complete exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:1-40. The following letter from a good brother in Texas will set before our readers the problem that we are undertaking to solve. Read this letter and preserve your paper and wait for the reply in the issues that follow: In the Gospel Advocate of April 27, 1933, you have some logic and deductions hard for me to accept in the light of the Holy Scrip­tures.

I may not understand God’s teaching on marriage and divorce, but I have the Bible before me and believe God is its author.

God granted Moses to give a law on putting away (Deuteronomy 24:1 ff.) for the cause stated, "uncleanness"; Jesus lived, taught, and died under that law; his interpretation of that law while living as a man and teacher sent from God was that uncleanness—infidelity to the marital vow—was the only cause for putting away.

Malachi (Malachi 2:16), the prophet of God, states that God hates "put­ting away"; so let us keep this fact before us while we go on in this study.

Jesus said to the apostles: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth [including in the church] shall be bound in heaven"; and, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore"; and, "Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until" the Holy Spirit comes, and power too; and, "He will guide you into all truth."

Now we read Acts 2:1 ff.: "When the day of Pentecost was fully come." Previous to this time and place there was no binding on earth and no binding in heaven—only teaching the truth and truth only. At Pentecost, in Jerusalem, the binding by the apostles began, and so the binding by Jesus Christ the Lord began in heaven— God’s plan.

Therefore, whatever the apostles have bound on earth regarding putting away, the Lord has bound in heaven; not what Jesus taught under the law of Moses; not what men have taught as expedient. No! No! What say the "binders on earth"? "For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man." (Romans 7:2-3.) "But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be recon­ciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11.) This is the Lord’s doing, and binding on earth to all humanity; as universal as the invitation to come; add not, subtract not.

We are not under the law of Moses with its divorce code; we are freed from the law that allowed what God hates.

Jesus gave the correct interpretation of Moses’ law to the Jews.

Let us be sure that an apostle has bound before we go forward with any teaching. "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." Where this side of Pentecost has God the Father, Jesus Christ our Savior, or the Holy Spirit the teacher, through the binders, the apostles, granted divorce or re­marriage? If they have not, shall we?

Brother Brewer, I write you this not to criticize, but in the love of him who died for us, and with the full and confident idea that it is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus our Lord. "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" May grace, mercy, and peace be with us all.

We shall reply to this letter under the following divisions:

Under the fourth heading we shall give an article to an examination of 1 Corinthians 7:1-40. We shall endeavor to answer the question of whether or not a believing brother or sister, whose unbelieving companion has deserted him or her on account of religion, is free to marry again. Once again we request our readers to keep this copy of the paper and watch for the articles that shall follow.

GOD HATES DIVORCE

1. Jehovah Hates Putting Away. (Malachi 2:16.) Our Texas correspondent whose letter was published last week cited the reference here given to show that God hates divorce, and he seemed to think that if we interpret Christ to allow divorce on the ground of fornication, we will not show the proper hatred for divorce; that we will be too tolerant toward divorce; that we will be thereby showing a lax attitude toward divorce. But our brother is wrong in this. According to Matthew (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9), Christ did allow divorce for fornication, or whoredom, for so the word should be translated here. Now, if we teach just what Christ taught, then it must be obvious that our attitude toward divorce is just what Christ’s attitude was. Any charge that is made against our teaching applies primarily against what Christ taught. Shall we say that Christ did not hate divorce in the same way that Jehovah hates this sin? No, indeed! Christ was not tolerant toward divorce in allowing divorce for whoredom, unless we want to claim that he was tolerant of whoredom. Christ condemned divorce and strongly de­cried the practice of the Jews from Moses’ day down. He plainly said that what Moses allowed, and what the Jews practiced, was not in harmony with the will of God con­cerning the marriage relationship. God’s will from the be­ginning has been, and ever will be, that the husband and wife are one flesh by divine fiat, by spiritual bonds, by fleshly functions, and by natural offspring. They are no longer two, but one. Anyone, therefore, who puts them asunder—be he one of the contracting parties who by whore­dom rends asunder the union, or be he civil judge who by legal decree separates them, or be he religious teacher who by false teaching moves them to put each other away—has violated the will and law of Jehovah and has brought him­self under condemnation. Docs that look like a lax attitude toward divorce? That was Christ’s attitude, and it is the attitude of all who now believe and apply the teaching of Christ. We have said in this department that there can be no divorce without a sin against God that jeopardizes the soul of someone—the guilty one and perhaps others. Often the souls of many are put into peril.

He sets forth marriage as God intends for it to be—a man and a woman joined for life. This is God’s law and this Jesus plainly taught. He showed that this law can be broken, but the one who breaks it is bound for hell. Whenever, therefore, married people are even scripturally divorced—divorced for whoredom—it means that at least one soul is sunk. In the name of the Lord, let us quit talking about scriptural divorce as though it were a light matter. No divorce is ever scriptural for both sides. When a marriage is broken, a soul is lost. Of course, Jehovah hates divorce, because he hates whore­dom, and that alone justifies divorce. In the quotation from Malachi, Jehovah condemns the men for dealing treacher­ously with their wives—for being unfaithful to them. He did not condemn them for putting away their wives because they, the wives, were unfaithful. That was not the situation. Those who did the putting away were themselves the un­faithful ones. The prophet said that Jehovah hated this practice. He hates it even now.

The brother thinks that the "unseemly thing" here means unchastity and that it is the same ground, therefore, upon which Christ allowed divorce. The Jews themselves were divided over the meaning of this language. There were among them two famous divinity schools—that of Shammai and that of Hillel. The school of Shammai held that a man could not legally put away his wife except for whoredom. The school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife "for every cause," if she did not find favor in his sight— that is, if he saw some other woman he liked better. If he became displeased with his wife, he interpreted Moses’ ex­pression, "if she find no favor in his eyes," to cover his case, and therefore put her away. Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, tells us of his own experience with the utmost coolness and indifference. He says: "About this time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children, not being pleased with her manners." This gives us an idea of the prevailing views of divorce when our Lord spoke. But it must be clear to all who read the nineteenth chapter of Matthew that our Lord taught something differ­ent from that which Moses taught. When he had answered their question about putting away a wife, the Jews under­stood that what he said was not what Moses had taught them, and they asked: "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?" In other words, if what you say is true, then why did Moses say some­thing else? He then told them that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses gave that law, but that what Moses commanded had not been the purpose and will of God from the beginning. Then he adds, "AndI say unto yon." not what Moses said on account of the hardness of your hearts, but what God ordained from the beginning. This law here announced by Jesus was so much stricter than what Moses had taught, and what therefore the Jews had believed, that even the Lord’s own disciples drew the con­clusion that it would not be expedient to marry. In effect they said: "Lord, if what you have just said is true, it would be dangerous to get married; it would be too great a risk to take!" This shows clearly that our Lord did not just repeat Moses’ law. The language of Moses in Deuteronomy did not refer to fornication. The word "uncleanness" evidently meant some physical defect, deformity, or disease—something that would render the woman obnoxious to her husband. And yet it did not refer to some defect that would wholly disqualify the woman as a wife, for he speaks of her marrying another man, who may or may not overlook and tolerate this defect. Evidently a good man might bear with the "unseemly thing," but those of "hardness of heart"—that is, of wicked hearts— would be embittered by it, would probably be abusive of the wife and perhaps even kill her; and if not that, they would be unfaithful to her and seek solace from other women. To prevent this condition from prevailing in their society, Moses permitted men to put away a wife if they found her obnoxious. But Jesus taught that if men want to be in harmony with the will of God they will not be so wicked and will not seek to disobey that which was God’s will from the beginning.

Wait for the rent of it. WAS WHAT JESUS TAUGHT ON DIVORCE BOUND BY THE APOSTLES? The third division of our reply to the letter published in this department two weeks ago is:

Shall we now conclude that all those things which we find in the Gospels that are not repeated in the Acts or the Epistles are to be rejected by us as belonging to the covenant under which they were uttered? No, indeed! Such a con­clusion would be worse than foolish. It would rob us of some of the finest rules and principles that were announced by our Lord. To illustrate: Take the Sermon on the Mount; how much of it is repeated this side of Pentecost? How much of that sermon would we know, if we did not learn it from Matthew? Yet, examine it and see how much of it, or rather how little, belonged to the law of Moses. If we take none of it except what may be found repeated in Acts or the Epistles, we will cheat ourselves woefully. We will not have the Beatitudes. We will not have the Golden Rule. We will not have the teaching on how to treat an enemy. (Matthew 5:43-46.) We will not have the principle that anger is murder, and that the thought is adultery. (Matthew 5:21-28.) (It is true that Paul and John announce some similar prin­ciples, but they are not given in this inimitable style.) To further illustrate: We know that Matthew tells us that Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. We do not find either precept or example of this after the com­ing of the Holy Spirit. Shall we say, therefore, that this was not bound by the apostles? Such a conclusion would be absurd.

Again, Matthew tells us about what Jesus said in refer­ence to the procedure of church discipline: "Tell it unto the church." (Matthew 18:15-21.) We do not have a mention of this procedure by any of the "binders on earth." Shall we throw this out as belonging to the law? But to settle the point, how would we know that the apostles had power to bind on earth and loose on earth, if we did not learn it from Matthew? What apostle mentions this in the Acts or the Epistles? Surely we can see, now, that we must not reject the teachings of Christ because they are not repeated this side of Pentecost. But an objector might inquire: "Since Christ taught some things that belonged to the law and some that did not; since he taught some things that are applicable to us and some that are not, how can we discriminate between them, unless we take only that which the apostles repeated?" We an­swer: "By the use of a little common sense." When Christ commanded his disciples to go and loose an ass colt and bring him to Christ, we all know, without the use of any unusual intellectual powers, that this command was limited and local. It applied only to the apostles, and only to one occa­sion, and to only one particular ass. No one feels obligated to bring ass colts to the Lord now. The same reasoning applies to the command to prepare the Passover; the com­mand to cast the fish net on the other side of the ship; the command to catch a fish and take a coin from its mouth; the command to loose Lazarus and let him go, etc. Should any responsible soul find trouble in making proper discrimina­tions in commands like these, and those that apply to us? When the church was announced as something future, something yet to be built, and then, when instructions were given about how this church is to carry on its work, after it is built, does it take men of extraordinary acumen to know that these instructions to the church—not then established— did not go out of effect the day the church was established? Or, when the Great Commission was given, at the close of our Lord’s stay on earth, and since it commanded something to be done in the future, to begin when the Holy Spirit should come, and to continue to the end of the world, does it take an intellectual giant to know that that commission did not go out of effect the day the Holy Spirit came?

Oh, but an objector might say: "All that is plain, of course, but how will we know what part of the teaching of Christ belongs to the law, and what is to be in the new covenant?" In reply we say: "We still have the law of Moses; we can easily learn what it teaches." "Search the scriptures." We can compare what Christ taught with what Moses said. Often, Christ himself drew a contrast between what Moses taught and what he enjoined. He did this on the divorce questions, as we saw last week. Therefore, what Jesus taught on divorce applies to us now.

There is no need for confusion. That should not give us any trouble. Our problem is in obeying the teachings of Christ, and in getting others to do so.

Next week Christ and Paul on divorce. How shall we harmonize them?

CHRIST AND PAUL ON DIVORCE

Since, in this language, Paul mentions no exception to the rule, some have assumed that Paul allows no exception, and that, therefore, according to the apostle, nothing but death can dissolve the marriage bond; a husband and wife may separate, but they cannot marry again. If this con­clusion be correct, then we have Christ teaching one thing and Paul teaching another. Christ allows divorce for in­fidelity, but Paul does not allow divorce for any cause. What shall we say as to this seeming conflict?

Those who argue that Paul does not allow divorce try to avoid making him contradict Christ by saying that what Christ said belonged to the law of Moses and is not binding upon us now, while Paul’s teaching belongs to the new covenant and is the will of Christ revealed by the Holy Spirit. Those who offer this explanation have not examined the Scriptures on this point very carefully. We have seen, in a former article, that what Christ taught was different from what Moses taught. Moses allowed a man to put away his wife "for every cause." Christ said this had not been God’s will from the beginning, but that it was God’s decree that husband and wife should be one flesh; that God had thus joined them together, and that man should not put them asunder. He then showed that because of this decree of God, if a man puts away his wife except for fornication, he is a sinner. Since it is so clear that what Jesus teaches is different from what Moses taught, and is such an emphatic statement of the will and purpose of God from the beginning, we must see that the exception laid down, or the cause of divorce allowed by Jesus, is either (1) the will of God from the beginning, or (2) a new condition allowed by our Lord, as other conditions were allowed by Moses. In either case, Paul’s teaching must be in accord with this. If Jesus simply reaffirmed what had been the will of God from the begin­ning, we would not expect Paul to change and restrict this original purpose of God, thus reaffirmed by him through whom God speaks to us in these last days. And if Jesus an­nounced a new condition, we certainly would not expect this will of Christ to be abrogated by those who were his ambas­sadors, and who were to teach us "all things whatsoever" he had taught. Therefore, from either point of view, we are forced to conclude that Paul did not contradict Christ, but that what he taught must be in harmony with what Christ taught, whether we see the harmony or not. But another evidence that those who say Paul was teach­ing something that belongs to the new covenant only have not examined the Scriptures is seen in the fact that in both passages Paul clearly states that according t o the law a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. Paul did not give a new law, just now revealed by the Holy Spirit, but he merely stated what the law required.

What law did Paul allude to when he said that a woman is "bound by the law as long as her husband liveth"? Not to the law of Moses, evidently, because that law allowed divorce for "every cause." But someone suggests that the law of Moses only allowed men t oput away their wives; that there is not a word about a woman’s putting away her husband; that the wife was bound, but the husband was not bound. It is a fact that there is no mention of a woman’s putting away her husband in the books of Moses, and this must be accounted for by the fact that the women of that age, because of social conditions, did not have the wicked­ness and hardness of heart that the men had, which made it necessary for Moses to make concessions to them. But whatever Moses did, in this particular, does not change the will of God originally expressed, and Christ shows that the obligations of the husband and the wife are equal in this respect. (Mark 10:12.) But even if we grant that the woman had no right to put away her husband under the law of Moses, still, Paul could not have said that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, according to the law of Moses, for under that law the husband could put away his wife if she found "no favor in his eyes," and give her a bill of divorcement into her hands, and "she may go and be another man’s wife." (Deuteronomy 24:1-2.) A woman with a bill of divorcement was not bound to her husband, but was free to go and find another husband. This was the law of Moses. Then by what law is a woman bound to her husband so "long as her husband liveth"? Evidently, by the law of marriage given in the beginning—the law of her husband, the law that made him her husband and made her his wife. This is, therefore, the same law that Jesus stated and emphasized in contrast to the law of Moses. But why did Paul say a woman is bound by this law until the death of her husband, when Jesus said that she is released from her husband if he is guilty of fornication? Why did Paul not mention this exception? In answer, we say, first, in giving a rule or a law, we do not have to name the exceptions, especially where the law is not being discussed, but is only used as an illustration. In Romans seven, Paul was not discussing marriage at all. He only used the marriage bond as an illustration. His emphasis is not so much upon the fact that a woman is bound while her husband lives as it is upon the fact that she is free when he is dead, so that she may be married to another. This is the phase of the relationship that is in point in the illustration. As a woman whose husband is dead is free to be married to another man, so the Jews who were once bound to the law of Moses were now free by a death and were married to Christ. This is Paul’s argument and his illustration. Since he was not discussing marriage, but only using it as an illustration, of course, he would use marriage as God intended it to be, and only broken as God intends that marriage could be broken. He would not take time to argue, in such an illustration, that some marriages are broken by sin, which is not according to, but contrary to, God’s will and purpose. In the second place, all marriages are by God’s law in­tended to last until the death of one of the parties to the contract. It is not God’s will that fornication should break the bond, for it is not God’s will that fornication should be committed. Hence, married persons are bound till death by the law, just as Paul says. It is only by a violation of the law that they can be divorced. The law of God is one thing, the violation of the law is another thing. Paul only men­tions what the law is. But someone may suggest that in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians Paul was discussing the specific ques­tion of marriage and divorce, and that in that chapter he again says a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives; that he there mentions no exceptions. What about the fifteenth verse? He there says that under certain con­ditions, which he names, a husband or wife is not bound— the same word that is used in verse 39, where he says she is bound until death. The question now is, How shall we harmonize Paul with Paul? not Paul with Christ.

Next week we shall conclude these articles by attempt­ing to give a complete exegesis of The Seventh Chapter o f First Corinthians.

WIFE BOUND: BROTHER OR SISTER NOT BOUND—PAUL A RUNNING REVIEW OF 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 In order to have any fair understanding of this chapter there are a few things that we must know, and also a few discriminations and divisions we must make of the chapter itself. First, we must remember that the saints at Corinth were surrounded with and torn by conflicting theories and philosophies. On the one hand, Judaizing teachers told them that marriage is a divine obligation, and that to refuse or fail to marry was to be dishonorable and disobedient. On the other hand, some of the Grecian philosophers affirmed that if a man would live happily, he should not marry. And some of them, the Pythagoreans, contended that the matri­monial relationship is inconsistent with purity. In addition to these conflicting opinions, the Corinthians were sur­rounded with the most degrading practices and immoral influences, and these evils had not failed to affect some mem­bers of the church. Because these brethren were troubled by these theories, they had written to Paul and asked for instruction on the question of marriage and the relation­ship of husband and wife. (1 Corinthians 7:1)

1. Paul answered that it was better not to marry (on account of the present distress, but because of or to avoid fornication, a thing so common in Corinth, each man should have his wife and each woman her husband, and the wife or the husband should not deprive the other of the marriage privilege on any false ideas of purity, and thus expose the denied one to temptation. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5)

But, what he was next to say, in answer to the question, was not an injunction like his declaration of the duties of the wife to the husband and the husband to the wife, but was only inspired advice, suited to their present condition (1 Corinthians 7:6)—namely, he wished that all of them could, like him, live chastily unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:7). He addressed this more particularly to the widowers and widows in the church. (1 Corinthians 7:8) But at the same time, he told them, if they found it too difficult, it was better for them to marry than to be tormented with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:9)

Next, in answer to their question about the separation and divorce of married persons, Paul considered, first, those married persons who are both Christians , but who on ac­count of the inconvenience attending marriage, or because of their ideas of devotion and purity, might decide to sepa­rate. To these, the apostle’s command and the command of the Lord (Matthew 19:6-9; Mark 10:6-12) was not to separate. The wife should not depart; the husband should not put the wife away. But if anyone should depart and attempt to live apart, and find it too difficult, he or she should not marry another, but should return and be reconciled to his or her spouse, as their marriage still existed—they were not divorced. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) In the second place, he considers those Christians who were married to heathens, they having become Christians since their marriage. Concerning these, the apostle says he has no commandment from the Lord, meaning that Christ, while on earth, had given no precept touching this point. Only by inspiration given him as a faithful servant of God could he speak here. He then or­dered that such couples live together, if the heathen partner is willing so to do, because differences of religion do not necessarily dissolve marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:12-13) The heathen husband is sanctified, or rendered a fit husband to his be­lieving wife, by the strength of his affections for her, which made him want to remain with her despite his different beliefs and ideas. And by the same affection and choice is a heathen wife sanctified to her Christian husband. (1 Corinthians 7:14) And, he told them, by remaining together the Chris­tian partner in such marriages might convert the heathen partner. (1 Corinthians 7:16) But, if the unbelieving or heathen party maliciously deserted his or her Christian companion, notwithstanding due means of reconciliation had been used, the marriage was, by that desertion, dissolved with respect to the Christian party willing to adhere, and who had done all that was right to hold the heathen party in the marriage relationship. (1 Corinthians 7:15)

2. In that section of the chapter including 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, the apostle showed the brethren that the privileges of the gospel did not free them from former political, racial, and natural obligations. When these relationships did not interfere with obedience to Christ, they were to abide. The converted Jew was still to be a Jew as to customs and civil laws. The converted Gentile was not to become a Jew bybeing circumcised. Everyone, therefore, was to remain in the political state in which he was converted. In the third place, the apostle considered those persons who had never married. This class of persons, of both sexes, he calls virgins, and declared that he had no commandment of the Lord concerning them. By this he meant that Christ, during his ministry on earth, had given no commandment concerning them; but the apostle gave his judgment in the case, as one who had obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful—that is, he gave his judgment as an apostle who had received inspiration to enable him faithfully to declare Christ’s will. (1 Corinthians 7:25) Beginning, then, with the case of the male virgin, he declared it to be good, in the present distress, for such to remain unmarried. (1 Corinthians 7:26) But if they married, they were not to seek to be loosed. And if their wives happened to die, he told them they would find it prudent not to seek a second wife. (1 Corinthians 7:27) However, he declared that if such persons married, they did not commit sin. The same he declared concerning female virgins— only both the one and the other would find marriage, in that time of distress, attended with great inconvenience and trouble, and he wished to spare them of this, hence this warning. (1 Corinthians 7:28)

Then, in order to make Christians less solicitous about present pleasures and pains, the apostle put them in mind of the brevity of life, and from that consideration exhorted them to beware of being too much elevated with prosperity, or too much dejected by adversity. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31) And to show that he had good reason for advising both sexes against marriage, he observed that the unmarried man, being free from the cares of a family, had more time and opportunity to please the Lord; whereas the married man was obliged to mind the things of the world that he might please his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:32-33) The same things he ob­served concerning wives and unmarried women. (1 Corinthians 7:34) He, therefore, gave them this advice, not to throw a bond upon them, but that they might see what would best enable them to serve the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:35)

Lastly, with respect to female virgins who were in their fathers’ families and under the power of their father, the apostle pointed out to the fathers of these unmarried and dependent girls the considerations which should determine their decision, whether to give their daughters in marriage or to keep them single. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38) This long discourse the apostle concluded by declaring that all women, whether old or young, are by their marriage vows bound to their husbands as long as their husbands live (this point, too, should be considered in deciding whether or not to give a virgin in marriage); but if their husbands die, they may marry a second time. Yet, he gave his opinion that they would be happier if they remained widows. And in so saying, he told them he was sure that he spoke by the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 7:39-40)

Having completed the running review of 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, we shall study in a more analytical way two points—namely: Did Paul Speak by In­spiration on All Points, or Is a Part of the Chapter Only His Human Opinion? and, second, When He Said a Brother or Sister Is Not Bound, Did He Mean That They Are Free to Marry Again? Taking up these points in order, let us ask:

(1) I s the Entire Chapter Inspired? Because Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:10 that what he there enjoins is from the Lord, and not from himself, and then at two other places in the chapter he says he has no commandment from the Lord, but gives his own judgment, some have concluded that his judgment was not inspired, but was only his opinion. On this point the following argument from Dr. Macknight seems to be conclusive. He says:

Yet not I, but the Lord. The Lord Jesus, during his ministry on earth, delivered many precepts of his law in the hearing of his dis­ciples. And those which he did not deliver in person, he promised to reveal to them by the Spirit, after his departure. Therefore, there is a just foundation for distinguishing the commandments which the Lord delivered in person from the commandments which he revealed to the apostles by the Spirit, and which they made known to the world in their sermons and writings. This distinction is not peculiar to Paul. It is insinuated likewise by Peter and Jude. See 2 Peter 3:2; Jude 1:17, where the commandments of the apostles of the Lord and Savior are mentioned, not as inferior in authority to the command­ments of the Lord (for they were all as really his commandments as those which he delivered in person), but as different in the manner of their communication. This authority of the command­ments of the apostles will be acknowledged, if we consider that, agreeably to Christ’s promise (John 14:16), the Holy Spirit dwelt with the apostles forever (John 16:13) to lead them into all truth—that is, to give them the perfect knowledge of all the doctrines and pre­cepts of the gospel. This abiding inspiration St. Paul enjoyed equally with all the rest of the apostles, since, as he himself tells us repeated­ly (2 Corinthians 11:5; 2 Corinthians 12:11), he was in nothing behind the very greatest of the apostles. So that he could say with truth concerning himself, as well as concerning them (1 Corinthians 2:16), We have the mind of Christ; and affirm (1 Thessalonians 4:8), He who despiseth us, despiseth not man, but God, who certainly hath given his Spirit, the Holy Spirit, to us. Since, therefore, the apostle Paul enjoyed the abiding inspira­tion of the Spirit, it is evident that in answering the questions pro­posed to him by the Corinthians, when he distinguished the com­mandments of the Lord from his own commandments, his intention was not, as many have imagined, to tell us in what things he was inspired, and in what not; but to show us what commandments the Lord delivered personally, in his own lifetime, and what the Spirit inspired the apostles to deliver after his departure. This, Paul could do with certainty: because, although he was not of the number of those who accompanied our Lord during his ministry, all the partic­ulars of his life and doctrine were made known to him by revelation, as may be gathered from 1 Corinthians 11:23. Note 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:18, and from the many allusions to the words and actions of Christ, found in the Epistles which Paul wrote before any of the Gospels were published, and from his mentioning one of Christ’s sayings not recorded by any of the evangelists. (Acts 20:35.) Further, that the apostle’s intention in distinguishing the Lord’s commandments from what he calls his own commandments was not to show us what things he spake by inspiration, and what not, I think evident from his adding certain circumstances, which prove that in delivering his own commandments, he was really inspired. Thus, when he says (1 Corinthians 7:25), "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment, as having obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful," by affirming that he had obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful, he certainly meant to tell us that in giving his judgment concerning virgins lie was inspired. So, also, when he gave his judgment that a widow was at liberty to marry a second time, by adding (verse 40), "She is happier if she abide according to my judgment: and I am certain that even I have the Spirit of God," he plainly asserted that he was inspired in giving that judg­ment or determination. Lastly, when he called on those among the Corinthians who had the gilt of discerning spirits, to declare whether or not all the doctrines and precepts which he had delivered in this, his first Epistle to the Corinthians, were the commandments of the Lord, he certainly, in the most express manner, asserted that he had delivered these doctrines and precepts by the inspiration of the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 14:37.) If anyone is really a prophet, or a spiritual person, let him acknowledge the things which I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord Upon the whole, I appeal to every candid reader, whether the apostle could have said these things, if the judgment which he delivered on the different subjects in this chapter had been a mere human or uninspired judgment, and not a judgment dictated by the Spirit of God.

If we accept this as the correct meaning of the apostle’s language, we see that he alludes to what Christ said while on earth about a husband’s putting away his wife, or a wife’s putting away her husband. This teaching of Christ we have recorded in Matthew and Mark. Then, since Paul alludes to this, it is foolish to suggest that Paul taught something contrary to what our Lord said. Then, when Christ made fornication a ground for divorce, we must not construe any statement made by Paul as contradicting this.

(2) Is the Christian Husband o r Wif e Who Has Been Maliciously Deserted by an Infidel Partner Free to Marry Again? If not, it would be difficult to see how such "a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." If they are not any longer bound to these deserting partners, nor i n bondage to them, they certainly are free. If they are not free to marry again, then they are not free from this mar­riage bondage at all, and are, therefore, still bound. If Paul does not mean that the marriage bondage is broken and does not any longer exist, so far as the Christian is con­cerned, then his language has no meaning at all. To make it mean something else is to destroy his whole point. But someone suggests that he means that the Christian is not bound to live with and to give the marriage privilege to such a deserting partner. That would be a wise statement from an inspired man! Even Christians could live apart, if they so desired. He has already told them to live with these heathen spouses if they can. It would now be absurd to tell them that they are under no obligation to live with those who have deserted them, and refused their companion­ship. How could they live with such a person? But some­one else suggests that he had said in verse 10 that those who depart should remain unmarried, or be reconciled to their mate. Yes, he said that to Christians who might desire to separate. But this is to those who are deserted by heathen partners. And, since they were not able to hold these heathen mates, what would be the sense in telling Chris­tians later to be reconciled to them? The Christian was never other than reconciled. It was the heathen that de­parted. Did Paul call on these heathen to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to their Christian companions whom they, because of their religion, had deserted?

Absurd!

Then, someone is ready to say, according to that, Paul allowed divorce for desertion, whereas Christ made forni­cation the only ground for divorce. There is no conflict there. Desertion by a heathen includes or presupposes un­faithfulness to the partner, of course. Could anyone sup­pose that such a heathen, with no ideas of Christian moral­ity, but who because of opposition to such Christian ideals deserts his partner, would live a chaste and celibate life henceforth?

Jesus said that a man who puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery. How would merely putting her away cause her to commit this sin? Would she be guilty of adultery if she lived unmarried the rest of her days? Of course not. Then how is she caused to commit adultery? It i s understood that she will find another partner, and in doing this without being scripturally released from her husband, she is guilty of adultery. The husband caused this sin by putting her away. If, therefore, it is so well under­stood that a woman who is put away will marry again that Christ before mentioning a second marriage declared the woman guilty of adultery, shall we not say that Paul im­plied that the heathen who departs breaks the marriage bond by seeking another partner of his own kind? That is most certainly understood.

Christians might separate in order to live a pure and holy life, free from any concessions to the flesh. But Paul indi­cated that even they would find this too difficult, and would need to be reconciled to or come together again. Shall we assume that a heathen who forsakes his companion because of that companion’s holy religion will live a holy, celibate life, or shall we know and proceed on the basis that he will form another connection? Paul assumed that he would seek another partner, and. therefore, held the Christian whom he had deserted as free from all obligation and responsibility. With this conclusion reached, we see that Paul agrees with Christ exactly. When, therefore, he says a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, he must be understood to mean that this is true provided he desires to remain her husband, and docs not forsake her and form a connection with another woman.

Only thus can we escape making the apostle contradict what he said in verse 15. Now, what Paul here says about a heathen would not apply to a person who is a member of some so-called "Christian denomination." Such a person, if true to his creed, believes in the Christian moralities and ideals. He might leave a member of the body of Christ, and still live a celibate life. In that case the marriage bond is not broken. Paul’s language should not be interpreted as meaning that the marriage bond is broken, except by unfaithfulness to the marriage vow. When a man or a woman who is worldly, who lives after the flesh, who makes no claim to Christian living, forsakes his or her companion, and stays away for years, it may be safely assumed that the bond is broken, even as Paul assumes this in reference to a heathen of his day.