 From 1974 and until he passed away in June of 2005, Frank Caw devoted a considerable amount of time to research and study in Bible prophecy and related philosophical and theological issues. This website is dedicated by his family to his memory and work and is as he presented it at the time of his death. The family of Frank Caw, Jr. would like to thank Tim McHyde of EscapeAllTheseThings.com for hosting his website.
While always insisting on a plain, literal and sensible approach to scriptural exegesis,
he has pieced together many new scriptural insights on a number of extraordinary
prophetic developments that are poised to be fulfilled in our immediate
future!
Thus, it is safe to say that things are not going to happen the way many people think
they will happen.
But, this book will give you the scriptural keys for truly understanding what God has
preordained will happen, and how you can survive the incredible scenario of prophetic
events about to unfold! |
This ministry is dedicated to the loving memory of my
late wife, Debbie, who went to be in the presence of God on October 23, 1997, and who was
so instrumental in helping me to prepare for my ministry during those many long, difficult
years.
|
|
|
Biblical Divorce
And Re-Marriage
An Ipsos poll says that 25 percent of adults believe it is at least somewhat likely that Jesus Christ will return to Earth in 2007 2008. Of white evangelical Christian adults it's 66%. Want to know why Jesus won't come in 2007 2008, before most find out in Jan 1, 2008 2009? »» Read Featured Article
During Bible times, the Jewish Law recognized several basic moral justifications for divorce or nullification of a marriage covenant or contract between a man and his wife.
Those Old Testament justifications were ordained by God Himself because they were based on the scriptural passages quoted below, and they generally involved the moral failure of either spouse to perform their duty in the provision of food, clothing, reasonable marital obligations and sexual fidelity. (See Biblical Divorce And Remarriage by Rev. Dr. David Instone Brewer.)
Moreover, common sense logic and other biblical scriptures obviously require us to add violence and health-or-life-threatening abuse to our list of moral justifications because such evil activities are always prohibited for everyone, regardless of their marital status in life.
Exodus 21:10-11
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. (KJV)
Deuteronomy 24:1-2
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. (KJV)
Exodus 20:14, 17
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
17 Thou shalt not covet.... thy neighbour's wife.... (KJV)
The first scriptural passage, quoted above, addresses an archaic social situation that does not even apply to our society today, but we can derive general moral principles from its text because God is a God of logical consistency.
However, to understand Exodus 21:10-11 properly, we must view this passage in its immediate scriptural context, i.e., Exodus 21:7-11.
Accordingly, if a Jewish man sold his daughter to be a servant, she did not become a free person even if she became the wife of her new owner.
But, if the owner/husband decided he did not care for her, then she could be redeemed by her family; otherwise, she remained his wife. Nor under any circumstances could she be sold to Gentiles. (Ex. 21:7-8).
Likewise, if she was betrothed to her master's son, she was to be dealt with as if she was his own daughter; and she could not be sold. (Ex. 21:9).
Furthermore, if the owner/husband took another wife, he remained obligated to his slave-wife in terms of material support and marriage duties. (Ex. 21:10). But, if he refused to honor such obligations, then she was to be set free immediately without any need for her family to redeem her with money. (Ex. 21:11).
Thus, even slave wives, in ancient Jewish society, were protected in their marriages against extreme spousal neglect so far as their material and sexual needs were concerned.
Therefore, God's Moral Law permits divorce if either the husband or the wife fails to honor the marriage covenant in matters pertaining to food, clothing (and shelter), reasonable sexual relations, marital faithfulness and non-violent treatment.
Unfortunately, by the time in which Jesus lived, two major schools of thought among the teachers of the religious law, i.e., the Pharisees, had developed and coalesced around differing interpretations for the word "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1.
One line of thought maintained that the scriptural passage pertained strictly to matters of sexual impurity, whereas the opposing school of thought insisted on expanding the meaning of impurity to include virtually anything a man might find displeasing about his wife in any aspect of their lives together.
However, the word translated as "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 comes from the Hebrew word `ervah (er-vaw'), which means "nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish)."
It is translated as "nakedness" or "shame" or "unclean(ness)" in the King James Version of the Bible.
Furthermore, it is based on the Hebrew word 'arah, which means "to make bare; empty; destitute; discover; make naked; uncover."
So, apparently the thought behind this passage involves discovering or uncovering something about the wife that previously was not known by the husband.
But, exactly what kind of "uncleanness" is meant here is not known — although judging from the Hebrew dictionary definitions given above, it would allude to something discovered that was shameful, and disappointing, and extremely dislikeable.
We do know, however, that if the word "uncleanness" is a reference to the moral sin of adultery, as in Deuteronomy 22:13-24, then the Law demanded the death penalty.
Evidently, Moses realized that if the letter of the Law was always enforced in such matters, there would be excessive numbers of executions due to the extremely lax moral standards which prevailed among the Israelites at that time.
For that reason, he may have decided to modify the Law by permitting a wife to clear herself with a solemn oath in some cases (Num. 5:11-31), and in other instances, by allowing the husband to divorce his wife, privately, without subjecting her to a trial. (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 1:19).
Nevertheless, as noted previously, many of the Pharisees in ancient Jewish society taught that the only necessary requirement for obtaining a divorce, according to Mosaic Law, was a legal certificate of divorce; otherwise, they believed a man could divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever.
In actuality, Moses permitted (not commanded) such lax rules regarding divorce because although God hates divorce, God was forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in a sinful society in order to maximize the amount of good possible under the circumstances when no other viable option was available.
That is the real reason He instructed Moses to issue such a decree. Thus, by allowing this decree to exist, God accomplished two very important objectives.
First, sinful men were discouraged from leading illicit lifestyles in an attempt to avoid marriages from which they could not escape legally.
Likewise, it also protected women against retribution, or even murder, from resentful and dissatisfied husbands who might want a divorce for any number of flimsy reasons.
So, it was not surprising that, early in His ministry, Jesus expressed His opinion regarding this one particular aspect of the divorce laws, i.e., the controversy that surrounded the word "uncleanness." Thus, His New Covenant proclamation decreed that only fornication, i.e., spiritual and/or sexual immorality, was justification for a divorce, thereby implying that mere displeasure over trivial matters of life were not.
However, please note in the following scriptural passage that Jesus never questioned or challenged the continued validity of other Old Testament moral justifications for divorce. Instead, He simply addressed the singular issue of what the word "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 truly meant in its application.
Matthew 5:31-32
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (KJV)
Since Jesus did not take issue with the other moral grounds for divorce which God previously had decreed, we may conclude they remain in force today because they are moral laws which reflect God's eternal, unchanging moral character, not mere ceremonial laws lacking innate moral value in and of themselves.
That is why the New Covenant, personified in Christ Jesus, reaffirmed and sometimes even expanded on the moral commandments that had been given in the Old Covenant, but did not include any of its ceremonial and symbolic laws.
As confirmation, the apostle Paul later affirmed this entire matter in a more positive manner when he elaborated on the duties and obligations that are inherent within all Christian marriages. (I Corinthians 7) (Ephesians 5:23-33).
As even further confirmation, later we will analyze how the biblical principle of Objective Moral Relativism sheds additional insight on why there are moral justifications for obtaining a biblical divorce, in extreme situations, that go beyond any specific scriptural instruction.
Naturally, the religious critics and hypocrites did not wait very long before asking Jesus to clarify and defend His proclamation in Matthew 5:32 regarding the true meaning for "uncleanness" or "impurity."
Matthew 19:3-9
3 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?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 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?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 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.
9 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. (KJV)
Compare the following parallel passages:
Mark 10:2-12
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (KJV)
Luke 16:18
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (KJV)
Malachi 2:14-16
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (KJV)
Now the question arises as to how the word "fornication" should be defined. According to the Christian Bible, fornication means:
(1) Any sexually-intimate relationship or activity except for those which occur between a man and his wife. (Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:2-12; I Cor. 7:2; I Cor. 10:8; I Thess. 4:3; Rev. 9:21; Deut. 27:20-23; Lev. 20:10-21; Lev. 18:6-23; Exodus 22:16.)
(2) Incest. (I Cor. 5:1; I Cor. 10:8; Lev. 18:6-23.)
(3) Idolatry and adultery in honor of idol gods. (II Chron. 21:11; Isa. 23:17; Ezek. 16:15, 26, 29; Acts 15:20, 29; Acts 21:25; Rev. 2:14-21; Rev. 14:8; Rev. 17:2-4; Rev. 18:3-9; Rev. 19:2.)
(4) Natural harlotry. (John 8:41; I Cor. 6:13-18.)
(5) Spiritual harlotry or unfaithfulness. (Ezek. 16:15, 26, 29; Rev. 17:2-4; Rev. 18:3-9; Rev. 19:2.)
(6) Sodomy, homosexuality, bestiality and male prostitution. (I Cor. 6:9-11; Heb. 12:16; Jude 6-7; Romans 1:24-29; II Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5. See also: Gen. 19:5-8; Exodus 22:19; Lev. 18:22-23; Lev. 20:13-16; Deut. 23:17; Deut. 27:21; Judges 19:22; I Kings 14:24; I Kings 15:12; I Kings 22:46; II Kings 23:7.)
Therefore, fornication can be defined as any type of sexual or spiritual unlawfulness or unfaithfulness. This means, according to Matthew 5:31-32, that any such behavior is biblical grounds for divorce.
Sometimes Matthew 5:31-32 is taken out of context and interpreted to mean that if a man arbitrarily divorces his wife without just biblical cause, i.e., fornication, then she — the innocent victim — is guilty of committing adultery (if she marries again, according to a parallel scripture in Matthew 19:9).
However, we should analyze this passage more carefully by balancing it against everything else the Bible teaches regarding God's moral laws because, quite often, one scriptural passage will clarify the meaning of another passage by giving us additional insight.
Accordingly, in this instance, we should note that the Bible teaches we will reap what we sow, and that we will be rewarded or punished according to what we have done in this lifetime.
Therefore, God never condemns a person (male or female; Galatians 3:28) for the sins and wrongdoing of another person; each of us is responsible solely for our own deeds and misdeeds.
Moreover, words often can be a cumbersome tool for expressing ideas with complete accuracy and precision — especially if contextual and cultural and language translation issues are not accounted for properly.
Thus, a plausible explanation for the passage in Matthew 5:31-32 could be that women who do not object to an unjust divorce by their husbands would be willing participants in the divorce action, so they would be equally guilty of adultery under the Moral Law of God if they ever remarried.
Conversely, however, if a woman objects to an unbiblical divorce action by her husband, then she must be held blameless for something her husband does against her will. Under such circumstances, then, she would be free to remarry because divorce by its very nature, i.e., termination of the marriage covenant or contract, makes that marriage contract null and void.
Please bear in mind that the word "contract" is just another name for the word "covenant," and for a contract or covenant to be valid and morally-enforceable, it must willingly be agreed to by both parties to the contract.
If either party to the contract or covenant violates any of the terms contained within the contract, or even outright abolishes the contract, then, of course, the other party is no longer obligated to the contract, either, because the contract no longer exists.
For example, the Old Covenant was superceded and replaced by the New Covenant personified in Christ Jesus. God's eternal covenant with Abraham was conditioned on his continued obedience to God during his lifetime.
God's covenant with the nation of Israel was conditioned on their continued obedience — which helps to explain God's complex dealings with Israel during these "last days." Moreover, God's covenant with the nation of Israel will be superceded by a new and better covenant during the future Millennial Reign of Christ on the earth, etc., etc..
Likewise, sometimes it is argued that both Luke 16:18 and Matthew 5:31-32 do not condemn a man if he divorces his wife for just cause and then marries again, but that nothing is said about a woman having the same equal right.
Or they might argue that the "rules" are different for men and women because the man is the "head" of the wife.
But, such arguments are refuted by the following scriptural passage:
Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (KJV)
In other words, there is no distinction made between men and women in matters involving God's moral laws because everyone is judged on an absolutely equal basis!
Therefore, moral instructions in the Bible generally apply equally to both men and women except for those which define the different, respective roles or functions of men and women within the family structure.
That concept explains why Jesus appeared to repeat Himself in the following passage; He wanted to make it perfectly clear that His teaching concerning divorce and remarriage applied equally to both genders:
Mark 10:11-12
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (KJV)
Sometimes it is said that a marriage covenant can never be terminated because of the following passage:
Matthew 19:6
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (KJV)
But, it is possible for someone to tear apart whom God has joined together. Otherwise, it would have been pointless for God to say "let no man tear them apart." (Compare Matt. 19:6-8.) In actuality, the above scriptural passage simply declares the moral ideal which God intended for all marriages; unfortunately, the sinful reality can be different.
So, if the reality is that a married couple have been torn apart, i.e., divorced, then the marriage covenant, by definition, is null and void. Therefore, the victim, i.e., the offended party, is single and free to remarry because how could God hold the unwilling victim of an unjust divorce action responsible for what has happened?
It would make far more sense for God to hold the offending party responsible for the sin that occurred, rather than punishing or blaming the offended party by condemning that innocent person to a lifetime of loneliness and incompleteness as a single person.
Luke 16:18
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (KJV)
At first glance, this passage might seem to indicate that if a man divorces his wife for any reason at all and then remarries, he is automatically guilty of adultery.
But in order to achieve a proper perspective, we must consider other parallel scriptural passages which deal with this same issue, and then balance them against the above scripture to achieve a complete and balanced viewpoint. By doing so, it becomes apparent that fornication by a person's spouse is sufficient biblical justification for divorce and remarriage.
However, we should observe that Scripture does not insist on a person divorcing their unfaithful spouse; only that they are justified, morally, if they wish to do so.
Although we should forgive the marital betrayal by releasing any feelings of hatred or anger or resentment or revenge for both scriptural and health reasons, continuation of the marriage union is not commanded in the Bible under such circumstances. Instead, it is a matter for free-will individuals to decide for themselves.
Sometimes people will ask if "mental adultery" by their spouses provides them with sufficient grounds for a biblical divorce, so here is what Jesus had to say about the matter:
Matthew 5:27-28
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (KJV)
Because God is logically consistent, His moral laws encompass the entirety of human experience in both the material and spiritual realms of existence. Therefore, we are guilty of adultery whether it is an accomplished physical act of infidelity or an adulterous fantasy indulged in for sexual pleasure.
Of course, the consequences resulting from physical acts of adultery generally are more severe and noticeable than immoral sexual fantasies, but nevertheless, both are wrong to one degree or another.
However, one very important point to keep in mind is that we are not guilty of sin merely because Satan tempts us with evil thoughts. The sin occurs if, and when, we give in to the temptation by dwelling on the evil thought and deriving pleasure from it.
The right thing to do in such moments is quickly to dismiss the evil thoughts when they occur and to have nothing to do with them. As Christians, we must not forget that Satan truly is our adversary, walking about as a lion seeking to devour its prey:
1 Peter 5:8
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: (KJV)
So, is mental adultery or immoral sexual fantasy sufficient biblical grounds for a divorce?
In my view, this is something which must be considered very carefully and judiciously. It is not always so easy to ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt that a mental transgression of this type really has occurred.
Besides, we all know that the physical act of adultery requires a greater willingness to sin than does an indulgence in adulterous sexual fantasy — and that has to count for something in the balance scales of justice.
Furthermore, we always have the option of reconciliation after we forgive the betrayal by releasing any feelings of hatred or anger or resentment or revenge. It is always an option because the Bible does not command or mandate divorce necessarily in cases of adultery.
On the other hand, it can be quite devastating to learn that a beloved spouse is harboring thoughts of infidelity and sexual fantasies about someone else. Especially if they are ongoing and habitual in nature.
In fact, marital betrayal and infidelity can be so heart-breaking and psychologically shattering that it is one of the reasons why God will permit a divorce in such instances even though, generally, He hates divorce.
Accordingly, each case has to be judged on its own individual merits and unique set of circumstances. People will have to decide for themselves the truth of the matter on a number of issues relevant to this question.
For instance, did your spouse really betray you sexually in their thoughts? Is your mate truly repentant for what they have done, and can they be deemed trustworthy in the future? How much moral character and integrity does your spouse exhibit? Can you put the hurt and pang behind you, and focus on healing your marriage?
I do not believe God necessarily wants us to look at divorce as a first response to marital problems like this. But, if the mental betrayal by your spouse is sufficiently severe or habitual, and they are not repentant, and your feelings of hurt and pang over this matter are substantial, then perhaps divorce is a viable biblical solution.
1 Corinthians 7:2
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (KJV)
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (KJV)
According to this passage, if both husband and wife are true Christian believers, and one of them leaves the other, then both of them are commanded to remain in a "separated" condition unless they decide to reconcile and reunite. Under such circumstances, neither believer has the biblical right to seek a divorce from the other believer unless extreme conditions such as fornication or abuse are involved.
Instead, they should try their very best to heal their marital relationship through Godly prayer, love, tolerance, kindness, marriage counseling and marital negotiations between the two of them in an attempt to find good solutions or compromises to problems in their relationship.
Obviously the above scriptural admonition emphasizes the truth that God wants true Christians to avoid the appearance of immoral lifestyles which merely mimic that of non-believers. If Christian couples were always getting divorces from each other for flimsy reasons, that would reflect very badly on the Christian faith in the eyes of many non-believers.
For that reason, God generally forbids divorce for married Christian couples, and that prohibition should not be violated unless extreme conditions such as fornication or abuse are involved.
Furthermore, the above scriptural admonition clearly corroborates the statements made by Jesus that only an extreme situation such as fornication provides a sufficient moral basis for divorce; trivial and flimsy reasons do not.
However, if a Christian believer decides to disobey God anyway by getting a divorce that is not morally justified, then the marriage covenant would no longer be in effect.
Accordingly, the offended marriage partner who has been divorced against their will, without just biblical cause, would not be under any further obligation to their now-defunct marriage contract, and they would be single and free to remarry.
So as to make the meaning of the above passage even more clear, we should note that the word "reconciled" in 1 Corinthians 7:11 is derived from the Greek word "katallassw," and it was utilized in Greek marriage contracts to indicate reconciliation between separated couples who were still married.
Thus, the apostle Paul was saying that even though ancient Roman Law considered married couples to be divorced as soon as they separated for any reason, as far as God's Moral Law was concerned, Christian couples who separated were still married, and should reconcile and reunite with each other if at all possible unless extreme conditions such as fornication or abuse were involved.
Likewise, sometimes it is argued that Christian marriage partners who separate should always forgive and reconcile and reunite with each other, regardless of the circumstances involved.
But, "forgiveness" and "reconciliation" and "reunion" are three different things. It is very possible for a person to forgive their spouse and feel no ill will or anger towards them, but still not wish to reconcile or reunite with them for a variety of valid reasons.
If that is the case, then generally the scriptural passage above commands them to remain separated until if and when they reconcile and reunite — unless, of course, extreme circumstances we will discuss later are involved.
Please... click here to read Part 2 of this article.
Copyright © 1996-2005
Frank L. Caw, Jr.
All Rights
Reserved.
The Ultimate Deception
http://www.frankcaw.com
Send e-Mail
|
|
|
