from Google Images
It seems fair to me, if I am going to say that homosexuality is a sin and not behavior approved of or encouraged in the Bible, I should at least attempt to address an argument that supports the homosexual perspective, namely, that it is not sinful behavior. I found such an argument entitled: Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness Part II “What The Bible Does and Does Not Say…”, by Rev. Elder Don Eastman. Part I didn’t argue from a Biblical point of view, so I won’t address it. Only Part II engages the Bible for its support. For the sake of space (I try to keep my studies under 1000 words),[1] I won’t be able to address every point of disagreement, but I shall address what I believe to be most important.
I have no argument with Rev. Eastman’s perspective of Genesis 19 or the interpretation that God’s judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. I’ve already showed in another study in this series why God’s judgment in Genesis 19 was all about violence and not sexual behavior. However, I find little agreement with Rev. Eastman’s understanding of the Bible in his arguments that followed.
Concerning Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” Rev. Eastman dismisses the command, because it is part of a ritual code meant only for the priests. Nevertheless, the chapter begins with the words: “…Speak unto the children of Israel…” Thus, the command was not for the priests alone, but for the whole nation. Eastman concludes with: “Their meaning can only be fully appreciated in the historical and cultural context of the ancient Hebrew people. Israel, in a unique place as the chosen people of one God, was to avoid the practices of other peoples and gods.” Yet, the very next verse forbids sexual intercourse with animals. Is this also difficult to “appreciate in the historical and cultural context” of the time?
Rev. Eastman went on to say: “Rituals and Rules found in the Old Testament were given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. But, as stated in Galatians 3:22-25, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws.” While it is true that we are no longer under the Law, the Law did define what sin is (Romans 7:7), and all Scripture was given by the inspiration of God and is helpful for doctrine, evidence, correction and training in righteousness (2Timothy 3:16). Indeed, we are no longer under law, but under grace. God doesn’t count our sins or hold them against us. This doesn’t mean what the Law said wasn’t correct or is no longer bad behavior. All it means is God doesn’t hold bad behavior against us.
His argument went on:
“Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the “uncleanness” of idolatrous Gentiles.”
I’ve already addressed Romans 1:24-27 in another study. Suffice to say that Romans 1 unveils God’s wrath upon mankind, whose behavior holds back the truth about God. Idolatry confuses the glory of God—making him a man, an animal, and insect etc. When such a thing is done, how is it possible that the “image” God created of himself (Genesis 1:27) would remain unscathed? Therefore, the judgment of God was to allow man to do all sorts of evil, including practicing homosexual behavior, thus confusing the glory of his person as well.
Continuing Eastman’s argument:
“In I Corinthians 6:9, Paul condemns those who are “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind,” as translated in the King James version. Unfortunately, some new translations are worse, rendering these words “homosexuals.” Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind such mistranslations.”
Arguing that this translation trumps all other translations solves nothing, especially when one doesn’t show **why** this or that translation is the best one ever written.
Eastman:
“The first word – malakos, in the Greek text-which has been translated “effeminate” or “soft,” most likely refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but never with reference to sexuality.”
It is used in the Gospels twice for the same event (Matthew 11:8; Luke 7:25). It is used by Paul once (1Corinthians 6:9). Thayer defines the word: “1) soft, soft to the touch; 2) metaphorically in a bad sense: effeminate; of a catamite; of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man; of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness; of a male prostitute.” Rev. Eastman’s understanding of the word could be applied to any of the sins Paul lists. Why name them if “soft” (lacking moral control) is the meaning? Clearly, Paul uses the word to differentiate this sin from the others listed. All are immoral behavior, but all are different expressions of immoral behavior.
Eastman:
“The second word, Arsenokoitai, occurs once each in I Corinthians and I Timothy (1:10), but nowhere else in other literature of the period. It is derived from two Greek words, one meaning, “males” and the other “beds”, a euphemism for sexual intercourse… many experts now attempting to translate these words have reached a simple conclusion: their precise meaning is uncertain.”
Quoting the Bible:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Sins usually associated with heterosexuals had already been mentioned: fornicators and adulterers. “Effeminate” points to a male youth kept by a man for the purpose of homosexual relations, which may include seduction or consensual agreement. “Abusers of themselves with mankind” points to adults in a sexual relationship. The Greek word is “arsenokoites” (G733). As Rev. Eastman claims, it is used only twice in the New Covenant text (1Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10), also, as claimed, it is derived from two Greek words arsen (G730), meaning “male”, and koite (G2845), meaning, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: 1) a place for lying down, resting, sleeping in; i.e. a bed or a couch; 2) the marriage bed, and of adultery; 3) cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful; i.e. of sexual intercourse. This sexual intercourse, adultery, marriage bed or bed (G2845) involves males (G730), which is precisely why Paul’s word (G733) arsenokoites is translated to indicate sex between males in so many versions of our Bible.
Why any scholar (none mentioned by Eastman btw) would consider Paul’s use of the word to be “uncertain” is beyond me. As this study pertains to: “Homosexuality: Not a Sin…” I don’t believe Rev. Eastman has made his case. It is a sin, according to the Bible, but no greater than those most Christians are willing to forgive, such as adultery, divorce, fornication, etc. All are forgiven, but none who “practice” these sins are able to enter into a relationship with the Lord (i.e. enter the Kingdom of God) until repentance is made.
______________________________________________
[1] I wasn’t able to keep this study under 1000 words. My apologies to those who like to keep their reading time short.
Smoodock's Blog 
Dave White
July 14, 2020 at 07:57
Good Morning Eddie. I agree that the Bible is clear on this matter. In fact your description of the creation story of man and woman was quite beautiful. I do believe that while this is a sin it may be the result of the sin of an ancestor; father, etc. It seems that sexual abuse can lead to confusion. Also what is puzzling to me is that many years ago my wife and I ran the nursery school on Sundays at our church. We could identify several young ones that exhibited traits of homosexuality (boys), and when they grew to adulthood they indeed were. At this young age they were certainly not practicing because they were way to young to even think about it.
The lack of a father or father figure in the life of a young boy or a young girl also seems to have an impact on sexual identity (anecdotal evidence of my own observation); homosexuality can result as well as sexual promiscuity.
Bless you as you take on this tough topic.
Dave
tiptopsaidhe
July 14, 2020 at 14:57
Hi Eddie. What do you think repenting of a divorce would look like?
Eddie
July 14, 2020 at 16:51
Greetings Dave and thanks for your comment and for reading my studies. Lord bless you.
Whether or not homosexuality results from sexual promiscuity or from a poor or the absence of a father figure is not for me to say. I simply don’t know how it arises, but I do know that from a Scriptural perspective it results from an idolatrous society and a society that rejects the knowledge of God. By idolatry, I don’t mean bowing down before figures of stone, but I do know that commercialism borders on advocating idolatry–you simply have to have this… (whatever) and folks agreeing, thinking the item is a status symbol etc. So, however it develops, its not simply and individual matter. It is more complex than that. Society as a whole is being judged by God, and the result is a degradation of mankind’s glory; we glory in our sins instead of righteousness.
Thanks again for reading. Lord bless you, Dave.
Eddie
July 14, 2020 at 17:06
Hi Bill, all divorce isn’t evil. The Lord gives permission to folks who have been abused (physically or mentally) and for reasons of adultery. The matter is complicated, and I don’t feel qualified to make a judgment, certainly not as a general rule. Nevertheless, the vow is “for better or worse,” and I’ve seen folks divorce simply because they couldn’t come to an agreement over what job the bread-winner had. It is a serious and sad thing to see a divorce, and it usually involves more than just two people. There are children involved, and more often than not, they feel crushed over the matter. What does repentance look like? I have to conclude that is between those who divorce and the Lord.
I agree they shouldn’t be excommunicated over the matter. Church is for broken people. My point in this series is that everyone is willing to forgive everything but homosexuality. These folks seem to have to work out their lives alone. Little compassion is offered to them. I’m not someone with the answers, here, but I can figure out when folks aren’t treated with compassion. Saying “love the sinner but hate the sin” is the current phrase, but folks seem to think they can love the sinner from afar–don’t want to get involved with this one–be warmed be filled, but by all means stay away. I don’t think that’s a WWJD kind of thing. Just saying.
Lord bless you Bill, and thanks for reading.
tiptopsaidhe
July 17, 2020 at 17:43
Hi Friend. You wrote..//My point in this series is that everyone is willing to forgive everything but homosexuality.// I agree with your premise. It is probably easier for us to make judgments regarding things with which we can’t relate, or aren’t so closely familiar.
I didn’t mean to hijack the post. You just mentioned divorce and adultery in remarriage as things that should be repented of if one requires repentance from homosexuality. In order to repent of a divorce, it would seem to mean that one turns from their divorce, and thusly would return to their covenant marriage, which only end the death of one of the marrieds (Rom 7). It is interesting to find that adultery is not a reason Jesus gave for divorce. Adulterers, under the law, were stoned. And thus, no need to divorce. The exception Jesus gave was for those whose spouse was accused of prostitution during the betrothal period. Divorce was allowed under Moses for hardness of heart, but was never allowed by God (and reaffirmed by Jesus, and then again by Paul).
My best to you. I enjoy your pages.
Eddie
July 17, 2020 at 21:34
Sorry, Bill. I didn’t mean to be short with you. I never worry too much about tangents (hijacking posts). I have too little comments to consider such things. If my opinion is worth anything, concerning divorce, divorce ends the marriage. To remarry begins another bond. My concern about repentance here is some folks go through three or more spouses. Repentance doesn’t seem to have much meaning under such circumstances–better or worse has no definition. Vows are important, but granted, mistakes are made, we are human, after all. Yet, some folks act like vows mean nothing and keep seeking never, never land.
I did a study on the epistle of John (all three, but concerning #1), I was quite surprised with John’s attitude toward sin: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1John 2:1). It is as though John tells us, I hope you don’t sin, but if you do its okay, Jesus, our Advocate will protect us. We aren’t supposed to do these things, but we are broken, and God helps us to work it out; which means we are expected to fall, but the hope is we work it out. This goes for divorce, and it goes for homosexuality and everything else.
I’m particularly sensitive about divorce, because it runs in my family, not ancestors, siblings. I apologize for being short with you. I wasn’t thinking clearly. My mind wasn’t on sensitivity to your question but on my own family.
Lord bless you, Bill.
tiptopsaidhe
July 18, 2020 at 18:47
// I apologize for being short with you. I wasn’t thinking clearly. My mind wasn’t on sensitivity to your question but on my own family.//
No worries, I didn’t take it that way. ;-) I think most all of us are affected by divorce. If it isn’t us personally, as it is with me, there are those with us at every Thanksgiving table who have been touched by it in some way.
// To remarry begins another bond. My concern about repentance here is some folks go through three or more spouses//
I understand this point of view. Do you think, though, there is a distinction to be made between sin and a covenant? Sin (adultery, gambling, physical abuse, taking a brother or sister to court, divorce proceedings, etc.) certainly violates the marriage covenant, but nowhere does our Bible say that sin ends one. Paul helps us understand the difference…that until a covenant spouse dies, one isn’t considered to be remarried after a divorce, but an adulterer, confirming what Jesus said. No new covenant can be made until a death ends the first.
Those in the lbgt world understand this, and perhaps even better than “christians.” When the cake-baker, for instance, refused to bake for the gay wedding, nobody inquired how many remarriage-after-divorce-while-a-covenant-spouse-is-still-living cakes he had made. God considers both to be unlawful unions, yet we condemn one and condone another.
I’m unsure we really even consider repentance from sin within the religion of “propitiation” instead of “mercyseat” (Rom 3:25). God met with the people at the mercyseat (Exo 25). The blood of the goat that was sacrificed cleansed the mercyseat, so God could tabernacle with the people (Lev 16). (The goat that carried the sins of the people didn’t die.) Paul says that Jesus became the mercyseat in his own blood (YLT)…the place free of the pollution of sin where God can tabernacle with us and we can ask forgiveness and mercy. In the religion of propitiation, it’s more of an “ask once for all” doing. With that mindset, I can just continue on in my sin, feeling it really isn’t sin any longer. That is simply saying that there must be a certain number of days I can commit adultery in a remarriage before God no longer considers it sin. To exaggerate it, I could murder someone, ask forgiveness, murder again, ask again, over and over until I accomplish the number which God no longer considers it sin. Nonsensical, I understand. Yet, that’s how we live it out. It seems a matter of loving a merciful God who made a way for us to be able to meet with Him and seek strength for repentance and help versus the angry pagan god who required a sacrifice to appease wrathful vengeance. I know, it’s a somewhat crazy $0.02.
As always, I appreciate your thoughts. My best to you.
Eddie
July 18, 2020 at 21:14
Greetings Bill, and thank you for your comment. Lord bless you.
The Scripture says: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:9). The Greek word means to separate. God does join people together, but man can also sever the bond. Otherwise, the text would say ‘what God has joined together, no man is able to put asunder.’ In such a case, man would be unable to sin. The sin is that man actually undoes what the Lord did. Just as the union was real, so is the separation. It is an act, like murder, that cannot be undone. The closest one can come to undoing the act is to remarry. But, that begins a new union. Therefore, such a marriage can be made with any other person, as well.
Both Jesus and Paul spoke (or wrote) to folks who were committed to obeying the Law. The lived under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant had begun, but it wouldn’t be established until the Old passed away (in 70 AD) with the destruction of the Temple. In fact, Jesus told his followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees, because they sat in Moses’ seat (Matthew 23:2-3).
One of the qualifications of an elder was to be the husband of one wife (1Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:5-6). What does this mean? Is Paul saying that someone who is divorced cannot be an elder? What if the man is divorced through no fault of his own? I’m uncertain if this can be proved one way or another, but, personally, I believe Paul is speaking of a man having more than one wife. Such a man, though he may believe in Christ and follow him, is very physically / fleshy minded. It seems to me he would have some trouble seeing the spiritual side of things. Therefore, a polygamist, who repented and submitted to Christ, wasn’t qualified to be an elder.
The point is, in as much as I am able to see, a divorce ends the marriage agreement. While it is possible for the two to reconcile, that would require getting married again. Remember, under the New Covenant, followers of Christ are not required to obey the Mosaic Law. We are required to submit to the law of the land, in so far as it doesn’t cause us to offend the Lord. We know what sin is. The Old Covenant tells us, but we are not bound by the Old Covenant. So, if a mistake is made, one repents of it, and works it out with the Lord. This may translate to remarrying one’s spouse or it may translate to remaining single or even marrying again (to different person), but with one’s eyes open.
Everything Jesus and Paul said isn’t for us today. For example, are you still required to obey the rabbis (Matthew 23:2-3)? Paul spoke certain things because the time was short (1Corinthians 7:29), i.e. it was closer to Jesus’ return when the Old Covenant would be ended. Nevertheless, Paul also spoke to the uncircumcised, and they weren’t bound to the Old Covenant at all. We need to be careful what we consider binding, and what we are not bound to. It is similar to reading the book of Job. Everything written there couldn’t be the truth, because the Lord told Job’s comforters: “My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath” (Job 42:7).
I hesitate to say this is okay, but that isn’t. I’m less afraid to act on my own, but to tell you what is and what is not required concerning divorce is another matter entirely. All I know is that things are not as easy as quoting one or two verses of Scripture. We need to consider it all and pray for guidance. Hope this makes sense, my friend. Lord bless and guide you.
Dave White
July 19, 2020 at 07:55
This post has generated some thought provoking for sure. But in regard to some comments rather than your initial post:.
Let’s not forget that we live in an age of grace. That being said we understand from reading about God’s character as revealed in the Old Testament that he hates all sin. So whether we deviate from his perfect plan into any of the sins we have been discussing, we miss the mark. Whether or not God’s wrath comes down on us is not the point I think. The point is that we are to live as Jesus lived and follow his example; and he was without sin. While we may continue in sin eventually that sin will have consequences; whether it is to our own bodies, or as we see in this country now, our society. Broken marriages have consequences, sexual sins have consequences, societal sins have consequences as well. They don’t need to be delineated as we all know what they are.
Consider the family broken apart by homosexuality (or divorce for some other reason); the result seems to me to be borne by the children involved; emotional hardships, financial hardships, bitterness etc. My point is that while God might not strike us dead, the more we deviate from his plan the more of a price is paid.
I even think of my own physical struggles; type II diabetic brought on by my own battles with overeating. Sin? yeah. Abuses of the body, regardless of which specific ones, have consequences and all of these are the result of missing God’s mark in some way. In the same way all sin has consequences for us or our subsequent generations.
God wants the best for his children, and I am convinced that the best is found by following Christ’s example as closely as we can.
God Bless you for continuing these discussions Eddie
Dave
Eddie
July 19, 2020 at 12:33
Greetings Dave, and thanks for your comment. Lord bless you.
God’s “perfect plan” is, as much as I can tell, a man’s opinion type thing. There is no such thing as a ‘perfect plan’ in the Bible. Saying there is one, is a theological opinion that has been bought into by modern Christianity, especially evangelical. God’s will is something different. He works out all things according to his will (Ephesians 1:11). His will for mankind hasn’t changed from the beginning. He want us to be his images, in as much as the imperfect is able to image the perfect.
Concerning sexual sins, they all carry with them their own brand of trouble. Nevertheless, we do live under the grace of God. I think repentance would bring less trouble upon the sinner. Practicing sin is different from stumbling into sin. It is like alcoholism is a lot more trouble than getting drunk once in a while. The point is, I believe the Lord has subject mankind to our desires in hope–hope that we will want to work it all out with him. Those of us who push him away will have more trouble, but it is not a case of the wrath of God falling upon us when we fall into sin. We really have to push him away again and again… before he stands down and lets our sin correct us. He is full of grace and full of love toward mankind. His wrath was expended upon the cross.
I don’t think diabetes falls into the category of God’s wrath. Probably it develops from the diet we have. I don’t mean overeating, but the junk food etc. that is sold and advertised as the best thing since sliced bread. Once we change our diet, diabetes will disappear–**I** think, and I have lower end diabetes, but I’m ignorant about a lot of what is good and not so good for me. Years ago we didn’t have to be concerned over such things, because there was no such thing as ‘junk’ food. It was all fresh stuff. Bottom line is, the Lord isn’t looking down at us, waiting to strike us dead or to punish us as soon as we step out of line. He is merciful he is graceful, and he loves us a heck of a lot more than we think.
Lord bless you, Dave, and thanks again for reading my studies.
tiptopsaidhe
July 20, 2020 at 19:27
Eddie, I appreciate your thoughts, along with the time you spend in prayer over these things.
You wrote //Everything Jesus and Paul said isn’t for us today. …Paul also spoke to the uncircumcised, and they weren’t bound to the Old Covenant at all.//
With regard to the one-flesh binding of marriage, though, both Jesus and Paul reaffirm Gen 2. That notion would transcend both the old and new covenants, as to whom and how it applies. Paul even gives us the 2 options when separation has happened (he used the passive voice): remain unmarried or reconcile. When we mix black and white paint, a new color is formed. No matter the effort made, those 2 colors will never again be separated. With that in mind, I believe the phrase should read “man has no power to separate or unbind.” The scales of leviathan in Job 41 utilize the same word, in that his scales could not be separated or moved. I have difficulty believing that man has the authority or power to unbind what God has bound.
// But, that begins a new union.//
Jesus and Paul both call it adultery…not a new union. The very definition of adultery is sexual relationship with one who is not your spouse. By calling remarriage adultery, as in Luke 16:18, it is clear that the first covenant is still intact.
//The sin is that man actually undoes what the Lord did//
The sin, to me, is believing that we can do what we wish and that God will call “good” what He has already declared “bad.” As noted, Jesus seems to believe nothing has been undone.
Thanks for your reflections. It’s a touchy and difficult subject, as is your current topic. I like it that you’re willing to engage.
Peace!
Eddie
July 21, 2020 at 07:24
Greetings Bill, and thanks for your comment. Lord bless you.
These are serious matters, so please keep in mind that I am human and prone to err. I’ll tell you what I see in the Scriptures, but I feel unqualified to define what sin is for someone else in this matter of divorce.
According to this text, divorce is legal for reason of adultery. Therefore, what God has joined together can be undone by man. Hence, it being sin when it is done for the wrong reason. It would be silly to read a command in the Bible that tells us not to become a dog, because that would be impossible. It would be equally wrong to say don’t imagine yourself to be a dog, because only a child would do that in play, and Jesus said children are very much like those who are in the Kingdom of God.
So, once we’ve established that what God binds together can be undone by mankind, for a good, or at least an acceptable, reason, then it is becomes reasonable that man is able to do the same thing for an evil or unacceptable reason. Hence, it being sin to do so. The big problem arises when a man has divorced and remarried once, twice or even more times. If he has children in one or more union the matter is further and further complicated. If he becomes a believer after the second, third or fourth marriage, who does he cleave to as his wife, and what if she is already married and won’t remarry him? The matter of divorce would become chaotic, which is why Moses permitted divorce. It would be better for one with a hard heart to live according to some law than to live in chaos or no law. Once the whole universe was in chaos (Genesis 1:2), but the Lord brought order out of chaos. If sin is undoing the Lord’s order, then ceasing to sin would be beginning to live according to that order from the point of repentance onward.
No sin can be undone. Even returning what one stole deprived the owner of enjoying what was his while it wasn’t in his possession. Folks divorce and remarry. More times than not, that can’t be undone. Some would have remarried and had children in the second union, and furthermore, may be living a very orderly life together and serving the Lord. Why break up that union to reunite in another that didn’t work in the first place? That would be chaos, not order.
Both Jesus and Paul (but especially Jesus) spoke with Jews who lived under the Law. Both Jesus and Paul defined what divorce was **under the Law**, but the Law is no longer in force today. We live under the New Covenant. What was ‘adultery’ under the Old Covenant, may or may not be true under the New Covenant. While we can be sure that the Lord hates divorce, WWJD when a man repents after he had divorced and remarried several times? Should he, for example, divorce his current wife, whom he may love, to return to his first wife, who may not even want him? The answer seems clear to me, but folks in this position need to answer that one for themselves.
Lord bless you, Bill.
tiptopsaidhe
July 21, 2020 at 19:00
// 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 19:9 — emphasis mine)
According to this text, divorce is legal for reason of adultery.//
Eddie, this scripture utilizes 2 different words…porneia for fornication and moichao for adultery. That separates them meaning the same thing. The passage does NOT read “except it be for moichao,…and marries another commits moichao.” Jesus specifically differentiates between fornication and adultery. Thus, adultery is NOT defined by Jesus as a reason for divorce. Adultery was punished under the law by death. No need for divorce. The exception was for fornication (whoredom as the old texts properly read). Fornication was committed by those who were not married, which leaves only those in betrothal as being eligible for this exception. Joseph had the option to divorce Mary during betrothal, but not after they exchanged covenant vows. He was contemplating doing just that. Being that we don’t observe Jewish betrothal customs, there is no exception offered to us any longer.
//which is why Moses permitted divorce//
Moses permitted it for the hardness of their hearts, so they wouldn’t kill their wives to marry pagans.
Mat 19:8 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.
That’s who most pastors side with, though…Moses over God. A closer look shows that God never permitted divorce of married people.
// Why break up that union to reunite in another that didn’t work in the first place?//
The second or subsequent union is adultery, not a union. For a Christian, how is that NOT reason enough to leave it? Who would want to stand in front of Jesus as an unrepentant adulterer? His words couldn’t have been more clearly said. We may not be under the law, but God’s standards regarding marriage were fixed prior to the giving of the law. Lot’s daughters were betrothed to husbands in Gen 19, yet had not had relations (the same as Mary and Joseph). Dinah was forced to partake of the nature of porneia in Gen 34:31, as she was not married. Judah describes Tamar as a harlot in Gen 38.
Are you suggesting that God has decided that adultery is now acceptable while you present an argument in a subsequent post that homosexual marriage is fornication and not acceptable to God? Surely you see this as hypocrisy? Can we add murder or theft, too, since we aren’t under the law of Moses? Can you hear Hitler and Stalin breathe a sigh of relief?
Your question has merit, however. Who would want to live with the person who gutted you with intent and left you for dead? David sought out Michel, took her home, then put her in her own house, and never had anything to do with her again, all the while the bible describes David’s “wife” as the wife of Uriah (even though Uriah was dead, ending the covenant marriage with Bathsheba). Think of the dynamics of that home-life. Paul helped us when he said remain unmarried or reconcile.
1Co 7:39 The wife is bound by the law (of marriage) as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
If reconciliation doesn’t seem so pleasant, the other choice is to remain unmarried until our one-flesh, covenant spouse dies. At that point, Paul says we are free to remarry in the Lord, meaning to someone who doesn’t have a living, covenant spouse and is a believer. Again, seems simplistically clear. Maybe not so comforting for those of us who long to be in relationship, though.
// Folks divorce and remarry. More times than not, that can’t be undone.//
Of course it can be undone…and in exactly the same manner as was done when they left their covenant spouse. They go to the courthouse, file a document, and move their suitcase. Only this time, they are leaving behind adultery (not a marriage) and rejoining their role in their own one-flesh relationship, or remaining unmarried.
Peace!
Eddie
July 22, 2020 at 09:42
Greetings Bill, and thanks once more for your comment, and this discussion. Lord bless you.
Before I begin to address your arguments, let me say you may be correct in every point. I don’t believe so, but who am I to tell you what is meant by adultery and fornication in matters concerning divorce? I am not an educated man, certainly not a scholar in the ancient languages or any other matter. The most I ever came to be was a Sunday school teacher. That said, I will offer my opinion, for what it is worth.
Concerning Matthew 19:9…
Perhaps you make a good point, but the Septuagint seems to use pornea in connection adultery at Jeremiah 3:9 and Jeremiah 13:27. Speaking of the sins of Jerusalem the Lord accuses her of pornea when she committed moicheau with wood and stone (idolatry–Jeremiah 3:9). For clarity purposes a modern translation of Jeremiah 13:27 puts it: “People of Jerusalem, I have seen your adulterous (moicheau) worship, your shameless prostitution (pornea) to, and your lustful pursuit of, other gods. In both texts when Jerusalem committed adultery, she committed pornea. Moreover, Paul seems to tell the Corinthians that to have sexual relations with one’s father’s wife (adultery) is pornea (1Corinthians 5:1).
The Jerusalem Council had one four prohibitions with respect to gentile Christians: “…abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication…” (Acts 15:29; 21:25). So, the one word, fornication seems to include all sexual sin. Notice that in 1Corinthians 7:1 Paul says it is good for a man “not to touch a woman,” which some translators seem to think it means it is good “not to marry” (see Williams, Weymouth, GW, GNB, CEV), but the phrase seems to be a Jewish euphemism for not touching another man’s wife (Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29), and Paul says to avoid pornea, which would be adultery if someone had sexual relations with another man’s wife, Paul tells his readers to marry and have your own wife or husband (1Corinthians 7:2).
You can’t be saying that there is a difference between what Moses says and what God says, are you? Isn’t what Moses commands, the commandment of the Lord? Did he, who was faithful in all the Lord’s house (Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3:5), ever command anything that the Lord didn’t command? Moreover, didn’t the Lord, who was married to Israel, divorce her and marry the Church?
If this were true, then gentiles who were not under the Law of God prior to receiving Jesus as their Savior, would need to divorce their current wife, if she wasn’t the first wife and return to the first wife in order to live righteously. So, by coming to the Lord they would have to bring their past into subjection to their present relationship with God. In other words, their sins are not forgiven until they undo them. This would not only be chaotic, but it would be a burden few if any could bear (cp. Acts 15:10).
Not at all. To forgive is to wipe the slate clean and begin anew. If the past doesn’t matter any longer, then whatever is acceptable and permitted can be done. A man who is married to his wife is acceptable and permitted. Those who were involved in homosexual relationships in the past have been forgiven. The slate is wiped clean, but such relationships were forbidden in the past and continue to be forbidden today. Marriages between men and women were always permitted in the past, but the question before us is: can man break the bond of marriage. I contend that when the Lord says: “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder” suggests that man is, indeed, able to destroy what the lord joined together. If this is so, then divorce destroys the marriage bond. What was done in the past is forgiven, when folks come to Christ. Life begins anew, so the current bond of marriage is acceptable to the Lord, even if it is the second or third etc.
First of all, we need to understand that Paul was writing for “the present distress” (1Corinthians 7:26). He was concerned about further complicating a then present condition that had come upon the Church–either worldwide or for the Corinthians. He did say the Law bound a woman to her husband for as long as he lived. That is, the Law of Moses. Whenever Paul spoke of the Law, unless he specifically said otherwise, he was speaking of the Law of Moses. Most Christians at Corinth were Jews who were bound to keep the Law. The gentiles were not; they had their own laws to obey. After 70 AD, even Jews were no longer subject to the Law of Moses and were free to marry, if they had been divorced.
Finally, Paul tells his readers:
The Greek words lusis (G3080) and luo (G3089) both concern divorce, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. Yet, Paul tells his readers “…if you marry, you have not sinned…” Thus, a man or woman who is divorced, when he or she comes to the Lord, is free to marry.
Lord bless you, Bill. Please remember, these are only my thoughts concerning the text. Lots of folks will disagree with me. Certainly, I understood that when I was a Sunday school teacher. We can read the same text, but think differently. I don’t mean to say that the text is obscure, but we all need to come more and more into the intimacy of our relationship with the Lord, and as we with unveiled face behold him, we will become more like him, both in thought and in deed (2Corinthians 3:16-18).
tiptopsaidhe
July 24, 2020 at 14:24
//Finally, Paul tells his readers://
Hi Eddie. In 1 Cor, Paul says something of great interest. First, Paul addresses those who are married…
1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
If a person is married, they are instructed not to depart the marriage. If they do, remain unmarried or reconcile. And the husband is not to divorce his wife. Spoken clearly. Nothing to misunderstand.
Then, Paul goes on….
1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
“But to the rest” who have husbands and wives. Since Paul already addressed those who were married, who are these “the rest” that have husbands and wives?
These are the betrothed, yet not married, just as Joseph and Mary were betrothed when Mary became pregnant. Paul, here, gives instruction to those who are still in a position to make a good choice regarding the bond in which they are about to engage. His instruction is clear…
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:
This is the time when there was no covenant bond yet made. They were still free to divorce and remarry (betroth) a believer. Though there were likely consequences regarding the dowry and the family of the bride.
He sums it again at the end for the married…
1Co 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
//You can’t be saying that there is a difference between what Moses says and what God says, are you?//
I’m not saying it. Jesus said there was a difference.
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 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.
Here’s what Jesus said about it…
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoso marries her which is put away doth commit adultery.
That isn’t what Moses said. We can choose to follow Moses, though. Most do when it comes to this subject. Pastors don’t want to lose paying customers by telling them that unrepentant adultery is the result of remarriage after a divorce from a covenant spouse. That’s a good way to have the elders ask you to leave.
// use pornea in connection adultery at Jeremiah 3:9//
Let’s look further in Jer 3 to see how God feels about her, even though He has divorced her for her adultery with Ba’al…
Jer 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you:
He still believes He is married. That is God’s character and emotion regarding marriage.
Peace to you!
Eddie
July 25, 2020 at 08:01
Greetings Bill, and thank you for your comment and for your participation in this discussion. Lord bless you.
Concerning 1Corinthians 7:10-11, you said…
The Scripture is very clear here, and we have no argument. Divorce is almost always wrong.
Concerning 1Corinthians 7:12-13, 15, you said:
If these folks were “betrothed” how is it they have children (1Corinthians 7:14)? Paul is writing to a church that has a large gentile population. Moreover, the Jews of the Diaspora were more apt to have gentile, unbelieving mates. To these folks Paul said: “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace” (1Corinthians 7:15). Why would the marital union be considered bondage? I believe Paul is speaking about being in bondage to the Law, and such bondage is no longer valid today. God no longer deals with mankind through Law, but through grace. So, even 1Corinthians 7:10-11, although a good guideline, according to 2Timothy 3:16, is no longer a command. It is as though we are able to see what the Lord desires for us, but as all children, we don’t always take our parent’s advice. In such a case, the Lord doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. He simply deals with us in the mess we have made of our lives. He brings order out of chaos (Genesis 1:2) and creates us anew, i.e. shapes our lives from the point of our repentance onward. We aren’t in bondage to the past, but seek to image the Lord from the point of our repentance onward, or so it seems to me the Scriptures say.
Concerning 1Corinthians 7:39…
The Lord was married to Israel and the Law was the marriage contract. The Lord died upon the cross, bringing the contract to an end, which was officially and irrevocably consummated in 70 AD. The wife, Israel, is no longer in bondage to the Law. The Old Covenant and the Mosaic Law is over. All are at liberty to marry whomsoever we wish, but only believers, so this speaks to those who have already repented.
Concerning my saying: “You can’t be saying that there is a difference between what Moses says and what God says, are you?…”
If the Scripture is true that Moses was faithful in all his house (Hebrews 3:2), he had to have been repeating what the Lord either commanded or allowed to be an exception to his original command. Moses couldn’t have given the command from the Lord and then take it upon himself to tell Israel there was another way. This is what the Pharisees were doing by divorcing “for **every** (or any) reason” (Matthew 19:3).
Concerning Matthew 19:9, yes, this is what the Law said. This was the part of the marriage contract between Israel and the Lord. As for what you claimed about pastors, I hesitate to be as blunt as you. Pastors are between a rock and a hard place, and I like to think most want to serve the Lord well. Mistakes are made, true, but for the most part (at least in as much as I can tell), they are trying to serve the Lord. The problem is, many folks still have hard hearts, and can’t or won’t see things according to the Lord in this matter. Often, in other matters they are following the Lord. Therefore, I have to believe the Lord is working with them, and this matter falls in the category of judging another man’s servant (Romans 14:4).
Concerning my understanding of pornea according to the Septuagint in Jeremiah 3…
I have no argument with you in this. This is the heart of the Lord, and he was always faithful to the marriage contract. He hated divorce, and wanted Israel to return to him. The problem is she wouldn’t. Therefore, to end the contract, irrevocably, the Lord became man and died upon the cross. That is, the Husband died to free his wife, and with her, mankind. We are free to “marry” the Lord or not and live to image him. Nevertheless, our relationship with him is no longer according to Law but according to grace. Men sin. That’s a fact of life, but the Lord is able to cleanse us from all sin, and help us to continue to seek to become like him, always forgetting the past (cp. 1Corinthians 13:5, 7; Philippians 3:12-15) in an effort to move forward in our labor to image or become like him (2Corinthians 3:16-18).
Lord bless you Bill.
tiptopsaidhe
July 29, 2020 at 19:01
Good afternoon Eddie. Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the subject.
There are a couple of things to work through for me.
//If these folks were “betrothed” how is it they have children (1Corinthians 7:14)?//
Mary could have had the child, even if Joseph had divorced her. Having a child doesn’t imply a covenant vow has been made. The child, however, is sanctified by the believer who stayed in the marriage and didn’t divorce the betrothed spouse, but went on to make a covenant vow.
I agree, though, and appreciate you reminding me of the setting in Corinth. Paul says this idea in the middle belongs to him, not the Lord. And because of it, it makes me wonder if Paul had a spouse (because of his position in the Jewish religion, he likely did) who didn’t believe in Jesus and divorced him, or asked him to divorce her. I’m not advocating that divorce isn’t an option as a separation from the various forms of abuse, or from a spouse who is offended by one’s faith in Jesus. The difficult part for us to deal with is that there is no doubt, though, that Paul twice affirms that remarriage after a divorce is not an option, for he considers it adultery. It would make him double-minded to state a position, change horses in the middle, then jump back on the first horse at the end of the chapter. Somehow, it must reconcile with what Jesus said, and what God said in Gen 2, that the one-flesh bond ends at death, not at divorce.
As to “who” died to end the “old covenant,” this thought has intrigued me for a long time. You espouse that God is the one who died. Many ways to go with that. The most obvious is that Jesus died, not God, in faithfulness to God’s covenant with Abraham (Gal 3:17, Rom 15:8). Another, in 1 Thes 2:14-15, Paul makes the case the death was foul play by the covenant spouse (if we maintain that Jesus is God, and it was God who died). I’m not sure how to wrap my brain around God’s blessing to enter a new covenant when one is responsible for the death of the prior. That’s why Moses allowed divorce, so the husbands wouldn’t kill their wives to marry outsiders. I’m not convinced of either at this point, though I like the case you present that it had to do with the end of the law.
//Why would the marital union be considered bondage?//
The words Paul used for “bound” and “bondage” are different. Of the 8 times “bondage” is used in the bible, none refer to covenant. He is clearly not speaking about the “bond” of marriage when he speaks of being “under bondage.”
Thanks, again!
Peace!
Eddie
July 30, 2020 at 07:53
Greetings, Bill, and thank you for your comment and for your willingness to discuss this matter. Lord bless you.
If no vow was made, why would they need a divorce to break the covenant made to each other? After all, both the woman and the man are called wife and husband respectively by Paul in this part of his argument, and it is assumed without rebuke that they have children, indicating they were having sexual relations, while under this covenant with one another. If they had children and they needed a divorce to terminate the relationship, it sounds like they were married to me. If Joseph divorced Mary, while she was pregnant, she would have been subject to stoning for the sin of adultery (under the Law). What would it mean to be “under the Law”? Paul seems to be speaking with two different groups of people, namely, Jews who were under the Law and gentiles who were not. Why would gentiles need to put themselves under the Law once they became Christians? This is what Galatians is all about. The Law, which included divorce and remarriage, was in force until 70 AD when the Lord ended the Old Covenant. Up until that time all Jews, all over the world, were obligated to obey the Law of Moses (or Law of God, same thing), because it was a marriage covenant. With the destruction of the Temple, the Lord ended his marriage covenant with Israel and established his marriage covenant with the Chruch.
Generally speaking ‘divorce’ is a sin (with exceptions) which, like lies and murder, cannot be undone. It can be forgiven, but it can’t be undone. A new marriage is required, even if the couple in question reconcile. They cannot simply begin living together under the previous marital agreement. That agreement was ended, destroyed, severed, hence, the meaning of the word divorce. If the two cannot be reconciled, and they marry again but each to a third party, there is no **Law** to prevent them from doing so. We are not under a covenant of law, but grace. It is impossible for us to be under grace and the Law at the same time. We can submit to only one at a time.
Yes, because gentiles aren’t covered under the Law. They had no inheritance under the Old Covenant. The Lord didn’t take **them** into consideration, except that they could enter into a relationship with the Lord by embracing the Old Covenant. Yet, they still had no inheritance. All the land went to members of the twelve tribes and no one else. Therefore, Paul gave his advice about the gentiles who entered into a relationship with the Lord under the New Covenant, in which they did have an inheritance. Yet, the Lord never commanded gentiles to obey the Law of Moses, so there was no text, to which he could point that covered gentiles.
No, it wouldn’t, because Paul was speaking to Jews, who were bound to the Old Covenant and gentiles who were not – two different horses to use your analogy.
Bill, if you are a Jehovah’s Witness or a Biblical Unitarian, I have no desire to trouble you on this matter. For me John 1:1 and 1:14 are clear enough for me. The Scriptures will support that proposition, but I’m not inclined to trouble you here, especially if you attend a church that teaches Jesus isn’t God. Divorce is one thing but this is a matter between you and the Lord.
The text in question is:
The same Greek word is used in Acts 7:6 to say Israel was brought into bondage by Egypt. Elsewhere it is used to point to a ‘servant / slave’ in various contexts, some for good, while others are not. I don’t see you making your point here. If an unbeliever ended the marriage covenant the brother or sister was not “under bondage (G1402) in such cases.” In other words, he or she wasn’t under the Law. For me, this point is clear. We are either under grace or under Law, i.e. under the New Covenant or under the Old Covenant (which has ended). This doesn’t mean we can use divorce like a pill for a headache. We need to be responsible children of God. Nevertheless, divorce does end the marital relationship. Both Jesus and Paul tell us it did. The only question concerning their teaching is, were their commands for folks still under the Old Covenant or are they in effect today? I believe, to be consistent with the book of Galatians, we are not under the Old Covenant and divorce ends the marriage, period. Whether one is reconciled or marries another, a new marriage covenant is needed and the child of God is not in bondage to the Law.
tiptopsaidhe
July 31, 2020 at 17:31
//If no vow was made, why would they need a divorce to break the covenant made to each other?//
Mat 1:24 shows Mary is considered Joseph’s wife, prior to them marrying (espoused in Mat 1:18, before they came together). Joseph could put away Mary, and was prepared to do such, until he was visited by the angel. Jesus said one could divorce for fornication (logou porneias in Mat 5:32 – a saying of prostitution during betrothal). He considered remarriage after the vows to be adultery. In my own case, it gives me great pause when I consider standing before God as an unrepentant adulterer, and would make the other person one. That certainly couldn’t be considered loving. It is for that reason, I take this stance. I began this search (years ago) in the hopes of validation that I could remarry. I haven’t found that validation.
// Paul seems to be speaking with two different groups of people, namely, Jews who were under the Law //
The marriage covenant applied to all, and prior to the old covenant. Eve was considered Adam’s wife, Sarah was the wife Abraham, Jezebel the wife of Ahab. “Since the beginning it was so” (Mat 19:8) certainly precedes the Mosaic law.
// if you are a Jehovah’s Witness or a Biblical Unitarian, I have no desire to trouble you on this matter//
I’m not. Not sure to what those advocate. And it sounds like they are not rabbit holes worth going down. I only gave the scripture from 1Thes that Paul made the case for foul play. I didn’t make the case. As noted, it simply intrigues me about who “died” to end the marriage between God and Israel. Maybe neither have died and the marriage covenant is still valid, since all who believe are considered the Israel of God (6:16). After all, the real covenant was with Abraham, and the new covenant was God confirming it with Israel (and replacing the old) that the real way into it was by faith in Jesus and the God that raised him from the dead…not by their dna or keeping Moses’ law.
(though I think I just walked into a lightbulb moment)
I believe there is a marked difference between a covenant and sin. Sin can definitely violate a covenant, but a covenant only ends at the death of one of those in the marriage covenant. “Until death do us part” isn’t just a phrase in a marriage ceremony. It was the truth about what happens in God’s eyes. When we make vows, we really only listen to the good parts (for richer, for better, in health), never expecting the other. The problem is that we stand before God and “these witnesses” when we also say “for poorer, or worse, in sickness, forsaking all others…until death parts us.” Our culture has changed it from “as long as we both shall live” to “as long as we both shall love.”
I will keep studying what you wrote regarding the law and pray about it, to see if God will lend His Spirit to help clarify. I pray for you and your platform here. You have added great understanding to my study of Acts (in particular) and others. This one, though, we are far apart. I don’t see Jesus or Paul allowing any room for a remarriage after a divorce, and I really don’t think either even allow a divorce after the vow, at least nothing is written down that allows it. Plus, if you’re one-flesh with someone, you can’t divorce yourself anyway.
My best to you, as always.
Eddie
August 1, 2020 at 09:55
Greetings Bill, and Lord bless you.
For me this is a theological problem to be solved, but to you it is a life issue to be solved. I can only imagine your burden and the sacrifice you made to be faithful to the Lord. How can I continue speaking words to define that which you have defined with your life? This must be where our discussion ends. To continue would be like trying to take away that which you have labored to do for your Lord. I cannot do that. May the Lord continue to bless you abundantly.
loyallis
August 6, 2020 at 11:52
I have read opinions that the Bible only forbids men with men but not women with women.
Eddie
August 6, 2020 at 15:33
Greetings loyallis, and thank you for reading my studies. Lord bless you.
Actually, the Law forbids both. Although male with male is mentioned, it is understood that it would be likewise true for women. Romans 1:26-27 shows that both are equally wrong. Nevertheless, as I tried to express in this study series, this sin is no greater than the sins that other folks commit. It seems that homosexuality is held up as greater than sins of adultery etc. but it is not. We need to recognize that we are a broken people, and we all need the grace of God to repent and return to him, and this is a process. No one repents and immediately ceases to sin ever again.