ONE FLESH

CHRISTIAN MISSIONS PRESS

BOX 2222
OKLAHOMA CITY
OKLAHOMA 73101
USA
LIFEHOUSE.ORG

Layout by María Ysabel Durán

Printed by Bible Press
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2023
 SUMMARY

James Burnett

This book is the product of much diligent study and painstaking

research. A great deal of time, effort and thought has gone into the
work and it is the prayerful desire of all concerned that it might provide
the answers to many questions. The real value of the book lies in the
fact that everything it teaches is based on the word of God. It is literally
saturated with the Holy Scriptures. There is much confusion in many
minds and the book seeks to address many perplexing problems and
many difficult passages. It is the considered view of the present writer
that the book succeeds admirably.

In writing this summary it is not my intention to eclipse what my dear

brethren have written but rather to simply underline the importance of
what has been said. We are living in dark, difficult and dangerous times;
no one can refute that. In the world at large the divorce problem has
reached epidemic proportions. Even as this article is being compiled
the daily newspaper lies to hand, the front-page headline reads “The
Quickie Divorce”. Apparently couples will now have to wait only one
year instead of two for uncontested divorce and two years instead of
five if contested.

Sadly the divorce problem is gradually infiltrating the Christian

community, which is a great and grave concern. Hopefully this
book will be of help in supplying some answers to the many
questions being asked and helpful especially to the overseeing
brethren among us.
3
One Flesh

The book reaches several important conclusions

1.- Adultery is not a ground for divorce. Divorce in itself does

not sever the marriage bond; only death or the rapture does that.
People divorced and re-married whilst their first partner is still
living are committing adultery and even if professing salvation, are
not morally fit for assembly fellowship so long as the relationship
persists. These may be strong statements but they are scriptural
statements. The fellowship of God’s assembly must be kept clean
at all times. Ever remember that we belong to that which belongs
to God and that should be enough to keep this defiling error at bay.
Let all young believers remember this: before marriage there should
be fidelity and after marriage faithfulness. Such language may seem
strange in today’s moral climate but it really is according to the
mind of God.

2.- Marriage is not a Christian institution but a creational institution.

The law of God governing marriage was given in Genesis at the very
dawn of human history. It must therefore be observed by the whole of
humanity.

3.- This book also addresses the problem of when marriage actually
takes place - when do the couple become husband and wife? It is
clearly taught that it is not at consummation. This may not be possible
for a number of reasons, eg a medical problem, a physical disability or
old age. It has been shown that in the book of Genesis Adam refers to
Eve as his wife before he “knew” her.

Sexual relations do not make a marriage (and being married is

the only moral ground for intimate relations), neither does sexual
immorality break a marriage. The marriage bond is formed when
couples take their vows in the presence of God and are pronounced
man and wife.

A man and woman who are married enter into a covenant relationship
and remain married “till death do them part”. This is the clear
unmistakable teaching of Holy Scripture.
4
 One Flesh

4.- Divorced people who have been remarried and subsequently saved
and still living together should not be baptized. It is possible for such
people to hear the gospel and be genuinely saved. Some would say that
they should be baptised, but what does the word of God teach? Romans
6:11 would tell us that we should reckon ourselves: “to be dead indeed
unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord”. People
who get baptised are in effect declaring in a public way that when they
enter the water they have died with Christ, when they go under the
water they have been buried with Christ, and when they emerge from
the water they have been raised to walk with Christ in “newness of
life”. But how can a person who is living in sin claim to be walking in
newness of life? The two don’t go together.
If they were morally fit to be candidates for baptism then logically they
would be candidates for reception. It is therefore concluded that those
persons divorced and remarried (and still living together) whilst their
first partner is alive are not fit for baptism or assembly fellowship.
There are of course many difficult, complicated problems and
extenuating circumstances that cause much distress and heartbreak. All
involved in the production of this book fully understand and are very
sensitive and sympathetic to others in these strange circumstances. All
have first hand experience in many of the trials some dear saints have
had to pass through. Some have given counsel as elders and teachers to
saints affected by many of the trials that are experienced in matrimony
and also have guided assemblies in these awkward situations. They
fully appreciate that many are caught up in distressing situations
beyond their control.
Not all sorrow is self-inflicted but we cannot base our judgment on
sentimentality. We must make the Bible our counsel and allow the
Lord to have the final say.
All associated with this work hope and pray that it will have a wide
circulation. It has been written with the sincere desire that people will
read it with an open mind free from any preconceived ideas. Please
read it carefully and prayerfully. Many booklets and pamphlets are
currently circulating which simply mislead the people of God and
distort the truth.
5
One Flesh

In conclusion, having highlighted some of the main features of the

book there follows a list of certain points worthy of note.
1.- Marriage is creational not Christian.
2.- Adultery is not a ground for divorce.
3.- Divorce does not sever the marriage tie- only death or the rapture
breaks the bond.
4.- Consummation is not essential for the making of a marriage.
5.- Grace does not make an unrighteous act righteous.
6.- There is such a practice as perpetual adultery: a person divorced
and remarried, whilst his (or her) first partner is living, is guilty of
perpetual adultery.
7.- Those guilty of perpetual adultery are ineligible for baptism and
assembly fellowship.
This book is long overdue and should be a help to all who read it. May
it go forth with God’s approval and blessing

6
 I
SUBMISSION AND
CONSIDERATION IN MARRIAGE

Brian Currie

In his first epistle Peter is writing to those who are under tremendous
pressure and great persecution. He expects that this persecution will
become worse. Such would impinge on every aspect of life, including
the family. Peter addresses the husband and wife relationship in 1 Peter
3:1-7. This is not the advice of a novice nor of one who never has been
married. He is now writing as a mature, married man at almost the end
of his life and therefore has a great wealth of experience on which to
draw. Also he was a companion of the Lord Jesus and we are right to
expect his teaching to reflect that of His Master whom he served with
such distinction.

1 Peter 3:1-7 is a section of this epistle that commences at 2:11

and extends to 3:7 and the subject matter may be generally termed
submission. This section can be subdivided as follows:

2:11,12 Personal submission leads to the glory of God; “they may by

your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of
visitation” (v12).

2:13-17 Civil submission, because of the will of God; “For so is the

will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of
foolish men” (v15).

2:18-25 Occupational submission that is acceptable to God; “but if,

when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable
with God” (v20).
7
One Flesh

3:1-7 Matrimonial submission that is valuable in the sight of God;

“which is in the sight of God of great price” (v4); NB “whose daughters
ye are, as long as ye do well” (v6).
In this chapter we are dealing with 3:1-7 in particular, and these verses
may be considered as follows:
V1 Expectation from the wife, “be in subjection”
V1 Explanation, “that..”.
V2 Examination, “While they behold your chaste conversation
coupled with fear”
V3 Extravagance which is outward, “Whose adorning let it not be
that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or
of putting on of apparel”
V4 Embellishment which is inward, “But let it be the hidden man of
the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek
and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price”
Vv5,6 Example from Scripture, “For after this manner in the old
time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves,
being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed
Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do
well, and are not afraid with any amazement”
V7 Exemplary behaviour of the husband, “dwell ... give honour”.
This passage has to do with the situation where a man and a woman were
married prior to her salvation. There is nothing in the text here, or anywhere
else in Scripture, which would support an unequal yoke. That such a union
is against the will of God could not be more clearly stated in 2 Corinthians
6:14-18, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion
hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or
what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath
the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as
God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their
God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out from among them,
and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and
I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons
and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”.
While these verses do not exclusively apply to marriage, the scope of
the teaching certainly embraces it.
8
 One Flesh

Expectation from the wife

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”
(v1). The word, “likewise” is indicating that her subjection should be
similar to that outlined in various situations, in the previous chapter.
In this marriage section, Peter commences with the wife since she was
saved and thus needed the apostolic advice. It may be also the case
that because the woman had so little rights in those days, there was the
great necessity to advise her as to her position after she had become a
believer.
This subjection was to be to her own husband. She had accepted this
man as her “own” and he had the right to expect a standard of behaviour
from her. Also, as she appreciated he was her own this gave expression
to the uniqueness of the relationship and the love and devotion which
ought to have been known.

Explanation
“That, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word
be won by the conversation of the wives” (v1). The word “that”
introduces an explanatory clause that gives the reason for the required
submission. “If any obey not the word they also may without the word
be won by the conversation of the wives”. This is not teaching that a
person can be saved without the word of God. That would contradict
Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by
the word of God”. The truth of the word of God is essential in the
salvation of a soul. The teaching here is that the man will be won to
give ear to the gospel by the deportment of the wife, not by her word.
If she is constantly nagging about the necessity of his salvation, he
will be driven away. She is required to live Christ before her husband
in order to win him.
It may be considered by some that she ought to leave her husband,
find a Christian man and settle into another, much more pleasant and
congenial, relationship. After all, it is taught that salvation has wiped
out the past, thus her previous relationship is negated and a step such
as this may be considered. It is important to underscore that there is
nothing here to substantiate this and, in fact, such an action is not
9
One Flesh

countenanced anywhere in the New Testament Scriptures. The position

of a woman in these particular circumstances has been outlined in 1
Corinthians 7:12-16, and the teaching of Peter here is in complete
accord with that of Paul there.
Note the clarity of the apostolic instruction in 1 Corinthians 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”.
However, if he decides to leave, there is nothing that she could do to
stop him, but can she remarry? Note 1 Corinthians 7:15, “But if the
unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace”. Some have
suggested the expression, “not under bondage” refers to marriage and
this verse is giving permission to re-marry. If it is necessary to handle
the Scriptures in such a fashion in order to find permission for divorce
and remarriage it reveals the weakness and paucity of the argument.
To call the noble estate of marriage, “bondage” may in itself be a
commentary on the state of some people’s marriages!.
In 1 Corinthians 7 the subject of remarriage after divorce is not
mentioned. In fact, as was expounded in Chapter 6 of this book, the
only time divorce is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7 is to condemn it!
The expression, “is not under bondage” simply means that the person
who has been deserted is not bound by the law, their conscience or
anything else, to try to make provision for the one that departed. Nor
can they enter into a controversy, either personally or legally, to try to
force the one departing either to stay or to return. Thus the end of the
verse states, “God hath called us to peace”. Christianity produces a
peaceful manner of living and if such a peace cannot be enjoyed by
living together, then there should be a peaceful separation and the two
parties should live in peace, albeit apart.

Examination
“While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear” (v2).
Her husband over a period of time has observed her in the home. He
would have noticed a big difference in her since being saved. The old
10
 One Flesh

ways and habits are gone. Perhaps her sharp manner has mellowed and
she is just a different woman as is paralleled in 2 Corinthians 5:17,
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are
passed away; behold all things are become new”.
He would notice her “chaste conversation”. She was portraying a pure,
modest, sacred way of life. She would not behave in a coarse, vulgar
or worldly manner. Perhaps she would display a modesty that was
not there before. In fact, she was now a Christian lady. She was now
living in subjection to her Lord and His demands were of paramount
importance.
Her husband would see that her fear of displeasing the Lord was greater
than her fear of her husband.

Extravagance which is outward

“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair,
and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel” (v3). Previously,
she had dressed in a worldly manner that was designed to please her
unsaved husband but now her modest way of living is reflected in her
dress and deportment.
Peter underlines the importance of this modest adornment by giving a
command, “let it not be”. This is a present imperative, which means
that it is an on-going apostolic order. The word “adorning” is our
word “cosmetic”. A Christian lady does not find her cosmetics in a
bottle or a tube. She will have a much loftier agenda than seeking to
impress ungodly men with powder and paint. The “outward adorning”
will reflect the inward thinking as is also taught by Paul in Romans
12:1,2, where conformity to the world reveals a lack of the renewing
of the mind. The external appearance is not to be neglected, but it is
to glow with a beauty that reflects an inner life devoted to God and is
in subjection to His will. This devotion will be seen in three facets, as
outlined in the next three paragraphs.
The word “plaiting the hair” is used also in 2 Timothy 2:4, “entangleth
himself” and 2 Peter 2:20, “are entangled”. In the Septuagint version
of the OT it is used in Proverbs 28.18, “Whoso walketh uprightly shall
11
One Flesh

be saved: but he that is perverse (twisted) in his ways shall fall at

once”. It implies intertwining strands of gold throughout the hair to
advance its appeal and lustre. Since a woman’s long hair is her glory, 1
Corinthians 11:15, it needs no artificial embellishment.
The expression “wearing of gold” is the only mention of the word
“wearing” and it means a putting around or on (peri, “around”,
tithemi, “to put”). That is gold around the head, as a diadem; the neck,
as a necklace, the arm, as a bracelet; the ankle, as an anklet; the finger,
as rings; will not be displayed by the spiritual, exercised sister. The
word “gold” is plural, meaning golden things. It is not teaching that it is
wrong to wear any gold, or else the next phrase teaches that it is wrong
to wear any clothes. It is suggesting that what is worn has a modest
purpose and is not for ostentation and ornamentation. Such a pragmatic,
functional purpose may be seen in the wearing of a wristwatch or, in
our society, a wedding and/or an engagement ring. However, these
things will not be loud and overpowering in their appeal.
In “putting on of apparel”, again “apparel” is plural, which means
she will not be over dressed and will not seek to attract the eye of man.
Nothing immodest, revealing or sexually suggestive will be seen in the
wardrobe of the godly sister. That is all superficial, extravagant and is
just a display of worldliness. The clear teaching is that we do not dress
like the world to win the world! Our strength is in godly dignity and
separation.

Embellishment which is inward

“But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not
corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is
in the sight of God of great price” (v4). “But” introduces the strong
contrast to the previous teaching which was largely negative. Now we
are given the positive side: “let it be the hidden man of the heart”.
The ornamentation is inward and unseen, but the effect is seen in true
Christian character. The “hidden man” is revealed in a realm that
is neither corruptible nor perishable. This is all in contrast with the
outward worldly ornamentation that will perish. The saved lady will
display “a meek” spirit that indicates a mildness,
12
 One Flesh

a gentleness of spirit which is seen in a calm temper, a contented spirit.

She will not be vexed about a change in fashion. She will dress in a
way that becomes a Christian lady even if it means she is not with the
latest vogue. Other uses of the word show that this is a reflection of
Christ- likeness: “for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find
rest unto your souls” (Matt 11:29); “Behold, thy King cometh unto
thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass” (Matt
21:5).
Not only will she be meek but will have a “quiet spirit”. This is a
tranquillity arising from within which will cause no disturbance to
others. She is not a pushy, brash, loud, self-assertive kind of woman.
This woman and the modern woman’s liberation movement would have
little in common. The only other mention of the word is in 1 Timothy
2:2, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty”.
God alone can evaluate such a character - “Which is in the sight of God
of great price”. This is an estimation that is away beyond that of her
husband or any other person on earth and is deemed very precious by
God. The word comes from a combination of two Greek words, polus
which means “much”, and telos which means “revenue”. It is that of
the highest cost, something very expensive. It is used only in Mark
14:3, “there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of
spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on His
head”; and in 1 Timothy 2:9, “In like manner also, that women adorn
themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not
with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”.

Example from Scripture

“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who
trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their
own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord:
whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with
any amazement” (vv5,6). It may be argued that Peter is introducing
something new. Was there ever such submission seen in women
before? We could hardly be expected to live like this today, could we?
13
One Flesh

He lifts an illustration from the OT, which would be appreciated by

his readership, which was largely Jewish, “after this manner in the
old time”. What a lesson for us to learn from a former generation. Not
all that was taught by our forefathers was wrong! Are we sure these
women were spiritual? Were they not just browbeaten and cowered
into submission? Note the description, “the holy women also” The
significance of “also” is to show that the OT women did what Peter
expects his readers to do. They were marked by faith, “who trusted in
God”. Saved women will not depend on the advice of ungodly men.
Some of these may say that the women ought to leave their husbands
or dress themselves in worldly attire with make-up, paint and powder,
hair cut and elaborately coiffured head dress. Also that they should
dress in that which is revealing and suggestive to obtain the attention
of her unsaved husband. However, a saved and spiritual woman
depends on God, not on man’s lustful and perverted reasoning. She
will have a modest adornment. The expression “adorned themselves”
means “to make themselves beautiful”. It is translated “garnish” in
Matthew 12:44; 23:29; Luke 11:25; Revelation 21:19; “trimmed” in
Matthew 25:7; and “adorned” in Luke 21:5; 1 Timothy 2:9; Titus 2:10;
Revelation 21:2.

That both Peter and Paul are inspired to write in this vein shows the
seriousness of the subject and the tendency for it to be cast aside. Paul
writes in 1 Timothy 2:9, “In like manner also, that women adorn
themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not
with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”. The last phrase
of the verse, “being in subjection unto their own husbands” carries the
clear implication that outward vanity is a denial of true subjection.

How far did they go in this subjection? “Even as Sara obeyed

Abraham, calling him lord” (v6). The reference is to Genesis 18:12,
“Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I
have pleasure, my lord being old also?” The verb “obeyed” is in the
aorist tense that means it covered the whole round of her life, whereas
the word “calling” is a present participle, which identifies her usual
response. That is, her life style was one of submission and this was
shown as she habitually called him “lord”.
14
 One Flesh

The readers were largely of Jewish extraction and they appreciated

their forefathers. These who were now saved had become true
children of Abraham by faith but these sisters now became the
daughters of Sarah by showing her character in subjection. Hence
the statement, “whose daughters ye are”. They were to learn from
the mistake of Sarah, who was overwhelmed and lied concerning her
denial of laughing. This was caused by fear. These sisters whom Peter
is addressing are told, “as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with
any amazement”.

Thus, despite the difficulties of the home life, the wife is never
encouraged to leave or seek a divorce. Of course this submission has a
limit, which is best described by Peter as he spoke in Acts 5:29, “Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men”. As in every walk of life the Christian man or woman
cannot take a path that is dishonouring to their Lord.

Exemplary behaviour of the husband

He now turns to the husbands and exhorts them as he exhorted the
wives. Thus he commences v7 with, “Likewise, ye husbands”. In
one verse he covers what we will call the exemplary behaviour
of the husband. This is embraced in the two present participles,
“dwell” and “give honour”, meaning “dwelling” and “giving
honour”. “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to
knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel,
and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers
be not hindered”. The force of “dwell with” is to underscore that
a husband is not a lodger who is seen only at meal times and
bedtime. A man’s wife is his companion and best friend. This
is the teaching of Malachi 2:14, “... 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”. When the wife is deprived of this companionship she
may become independent, establish her own life with its interests
and such a state can put a marriage under so much pressure that it
can break down.
15
One Flesh

The husband may take what he considers to be high spiritual ground

and argue that he is busy in the things of the Lord, and so has little
time for his wife and family. The Lord’s interests must be first. But
if a husband is too busy to accept the responsibilities of marriage and
family life, he is far too busy in the extreme. In fact Peter says there
is great consideration to be given to the wife, and the dwelling is to
be “according to knowledge”. The husband is to exercise spiritual
intelligence and be alert to the needs of his wife. He is to act in a manner,
which is “giving honour” to her. He must not take all for granted, but
is to assign or apportion due deference and value. He should express
his gratitude for the meal; the clean clothes; the labour she puts in to
entertain guests; the toil required to keep the home clean and tidy, and
so on. Of course, it is expected that the wife will keep house and not
present the home or herself in a slovenly way.
This deference is defined by two “as” clauses: “as unto the weaker
vessel”, and “as being heirs together of the grace of life”. The first
of these is with respect to the wife being weaker physically and
constitutionally. It is not suggesting she is weaker either intellectually
or morally. The second, “as being heirs together of the grace of life”,
may mean the grace that is seen in a gracious way of living and has in
view ordinary, physical life.
That is, they fulfil God’s intent from creation that a man and woman
were together in times of health and sickness: right to old age they
care for each other. Many of our readers will have expressed in their
marriage vows that it is a union that continues for better or worse, in
sickness and in health.
Alternatively it may mean spiritual life. The implication being that
the husband and wife have become joint heirs of spiritual life through
grace, which makes demands on each partner so that each acts towards
the other in accordance with grace and Christian affection.
If such mutual consideration is not seen and there is bickering and
arguments, then prayer can be hindered. The word, “hindered”
means “to cut up the road” as to impede progress or, in our
technological age, we would appreciate the idea of interrupting a
phone call and causing the conversation to cease. If the husband
16
 One Flesh

and wife do not live together as Christianity would teach, then

they cannot expect their prayers to be answered. There is a clear
implication that husband and wife should pray together and the
old saying is very true, “those who pray together stay together”.
In summary the passage is teaching the submissive modesty
of the sister to win her husband and the consideration of the
husband towards his wife. It could be stated that it is expected
that Christianity makes a woman a lady, and a man a gentleman.
If these principles were fully enacted in the domestic sphere there
would be far fewer problems in marriage. Let it be clearly stated
again, there is nothing in the passage that would permit divorce
and remarriage.

17
 II
COULD ADULTERY BE PERPETUAL?

Thomas Wilson

Some principles
When the Lord Jesus confronted the Samaritan woman with her
sin, both the Speaker and the hearer seemed agreed that she was in
a relationship that God could not honour, one that the Lord Himself
exposed as not being marriage. The woman owned that the man with
whom she associated was not her husband: “I have no husband” (John
4: 17). Her statement may have been intended to mislead but the Lord
leaves no doubt as to His verdict on her relationship: “... he whom
thou now hast is not thy husband” (John 4: 18). Whatever the nature
of her relationship, she and her consort stood condemned. So too did
the relationship.
The Lord’s rebuke of the woman’s relationship establishes three
principles:
1. That the creational nature of marriage means that its requirements
are to be met by Samaritan as well as Jew, and by extension, by
Gentile as well as Jew;
2. That, even in male-dominated society, there attached to the woman
in an illicit relationship a measure of responsibility;
3. That the illegitimacy of the relationship did not lessen with time;
use and wont would not adjust the standing of her relationship. She
continued in adultery until such time as the relationship ended.
Elsewhere in this (see p.39) volume the denunciation of Herod Antipas
for his marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife is considered.
John’s stern tones convey no sentiments that might lead us to anticipate
some subsequent adjustment to heaven’s verdict upon the royal
relationship.
18
 One Flesh

Today in similar circumstances, even in respect of royal associations,

public opinion might shift. “But John stood unmoved by any similar
wavering lawful for thee to have her” (Matt 14: 4). Although both Herod
and among the first-century sycophants; his terms are unequivocal: It
is not Herodias were divorced from their first spouses, there was not a
scriptural basis for marriage.
We should note that Herodias was the daughter of Aristobolus, the
brother of both Philip and Herod. The marriage of Herod’s brother
Philip to Herodias his niece - “his near kinswoman” - would also have
been unscriptural. (See Lev 18:6-20). Even if Herodias had never been
married, the law of God would have condemned Herod as it did Philip.
Herod was breaching the divine principle of marriage established
before the flood and the commandments of the law that were after the
flood. John’s reproof of Herod establishes three principles:
1. That civil powers cannot amend the divine principles of marriage
established by “a faithful Creator” (1 Pet 4:19). We recall that
civil authority was established in Noah, after the Flood. The divine
principles that were “from the beginning” (Matt 19: 8) therefore
stood inviolable before the highest of civil authorities. Being king
did not legitimise Herod’s actions.
2. That divorce does not provide any freedom to marry. (Elsewhere
in this volume divorce and remarriage are considered in the light
of the New Testament.)
3. That the illegitimacy of the relationship did not lessen with time; use
and wont would not adjust heaven’s verdict upon their relationship.
They continued in adultery until such time as the relationship would
be ended. Herodias certainly understood that the condemnation of
John would continue as long as her cohabitation with Herod. As a
result Johns head was soon to be on a charger.
The two cases cited above allow us to conclude that in every society
God’s original intentions remain and that civil legislation does not
excuse anyone setting aside of what was “from the beginning”. The
two cases also establish the responsibility of the creature to the Creator
in respect of the institution of marriage. Failure to acknowledge that
19
One Flesh

responsibility is sin. Those continuing in illicit relationships continue

in fornication or adultery.

The Lord’s own teaching

When the Lord Jesus enunciated the divine principles underpinning
marriage, He underscored what was “from the beginning”. He
emphasised those principles in a society in which many had settled
into unquestioningly accepting divorce and remarriage “for every
cause” (Matt 19:3). In the Gospel record of our Lord’s teaching, the
Spirit of God’s use of the perfect tense in the phrase translated “...
from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19: 8) emphasises the abiding
significance of those principles once established in that garden eastward
in Eden. One conclusion our Lord sets out in Matthew 19:9 recognises
the continuing consequences of entering into a relationship on the
ground of accepted societal attitudes, if that relationship violates the
divine principles that have been significant “from the beginning”. Our
Lord’s words are: “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”.
It is not the purpose of this Chapter to provide commentary on the
so- called exception clause: “... except it be for fornication”. The
interpretation of this clause is dealt with in Chapter 3.
Our Lord draws attention to the critical decision that marriage represents
for that man who divorces his wife, “except it be for fornication”.
The critical nature of the decision the Spirit of God underscores with
the use of the aorist tense of the verbs “shall marry” and “marrieth”
in this verse. The point at which to consider the legitimacy of the
marriage is before the step is taken. Unaffected by the fear of man, the
Lord also emphasises that the man who divorces his wife may take a
step, which leads him to commit adultery, whether or not he marries
a divorcee. He also deals with the case of the man, who marries a
“woman thus divorced”, ie put away for some cause not covered by the
Lord’s phrase “... except it be for fornication”. Neither man can escape
the responsibility upon his own shoulders to consider the serious step
20
 One Flesh

of marriage. Heaven had witnessed that first union. Indeed if he was

sensitive to God’s voice, he would hear reverberating wherever he
turned: “... the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of
thy youth against whom thou hast dealt treacherously” (Mal 2:14).
In the one case, “Put away your wife ‘except it be for fornication’
and marry another and you commit adultery”, are stark terms of the
great Legislator, who knew more than anyone the effects on society
when marriage is undermined. The Lord’s terms are equally stark in
respect of the second case. His personal authority stamps His teaching,
as the words “And I say unto you..”. But is the Lord indicating that
entering into an illicit relationship means continuing in an adulterous
relationship, until such time as that relationship would be ended? Twice
in the verse under consideration the tense of the verb “committeth
(adultery)” is changed to a present continuous tense. Is the change
significant?
One brother known to the present writer, in whose defence it should
be said that he did not profess any knowledge of grammar, suggested
that the initial coming together of the remarried couple was the one
and only act of adultery involved in the relationship; thereafter heaven
would smile on the relationship. If the grammar did substantiate the
brother’s suggested interpretation, the union would still be illicit if it
involved even a single act of adultery. The text recognises the solemn
reality of a man and woman entering an adulterous relationship. He
that keeps his Lord’s commandments will weigh well what He has
commanded in respect of marriage (John 14:21,23). That exercised
soul will acknowledge the dread possibility of one being involved in
an illicit relationship involving continuing adultery.

The apostles’ teaching

It is clear from the apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 that
the doctrinal basis of his teaching on marriage was the Lord’s own
teaching (see Chapter 6). The constant warnings against fornication
and adultery in his epistles illustrate forcibly his attitude to his Lord’s
teaching. Those warnings he conveyed as the very commandments of
the Lord. He, in common with all the apostles, expected that “everyone
that nameth the name of the Lord” (2 Tim 2:19) would shun serious
21
One Flesh

moral evil in obedience to apostolic teaching, see Acts 15:28-29. Those

who would not inherit the kingdom of God might commit such gross
sins. But even if, like the Corinthians, those sins had once marked them
(1 Cor 6:9-10), it was not expected that the child of God would return
to the very sins from which he had been washed.
John tells us that characteristic of a Christian, ie one born of God, is that
he “doth not commit sin” (1 John 3:6,9). Indeed John goes further in
connecting the believer and apostolic doctrine, whether about morality
or any other matter: “We (the apostles) are of God: he that knoweth
God heareth us, he that is not of God heareth us not”. It behoves
all who know God to show great care to uphold by life and lip the
apostolic teaching in respect of marriage. It also behoves all who teach
the Word to ensure that with due care they do seek to make plain the
requirements of the narrow way.
As Paul deals with the change in lifestyle of the Corinthians in 1
Corinthians 6:11, there is no hint that they would return to their former
ways. He is clear that there would be no defection towards the ten
sins that he has condemned as in opposition to the kingdom of God.
Paul notes how God had worked but begins by noting that they were
no mere observers of that work. He uses two verbs in the passive
voice: “were sanctified”, “were justified”. He also uses a verb in the
middle voice: “were washed”. That phrase is sometimes translated
“washed yourselves”. It may be that Paul is recalling what Ananias
had required of him: “... arise and be baptised and wash away thy
sins” (Acts 22:16). We note that the same Greek verb occurs in both
1 Corinthians 6:11 and Acts 22:16. Clearly Ananias was requiring a
public act of Paul which would declare to all that he disassociated
himself from all that had marked him. It would be a decisive step for
which he accepted responsibility. The blood of Christ was the ground
on which all his sins were forgiven by God; his public confession in
baptism was the public evidence that he saw those sins as defiling
and would not go back to them. Paul says no less to the Corinthians.
By their own act, they had taken the responsible step of renouncing
awful sins that no Christian would approve of. If any would condone
a return to defiling sin, Paul might have asked; “Shall we continue in
sin?” (Rom 6: 1). Is a return to homosexual sins acceptable to God?
Is a return to drunkenness to be accepted? Or idolatry? Adultery is no
22
 One Flesh

more acceptable. Only disobedience would lead any into that awful sin.
Those who inherit the kingdom of God are not marked by open, wilful,
continuing disobedience.

Is perpetual adultery possible?

This article concludes that those, who in disobedience to, or ignorance
of, the New Testament enter into illicit marital unions, commit adultery.
While they continue in such a relationship, they live in continuing
adultery:
» Whether they be jew or gentile;
» Whether they be male or female;
» Even if the law of the land recognises that union, and
» The relationship is of long-standing.
The Lord’s teaching affirms God’s original principle in marriage,
teaching that is consistently enforced in the apostolic writings and
practice

23
 III
Divorce and Remarriage

What saith the Scriptures ? “What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder”, Matthew 19:6.
It is being taught by some that our Lord “allows a putting-away
and remarriage by the innocent party”. It is desired to examine this
statement in the light of Holy Scripture. We trust it will be seen that such
a statement will not bear the light of Divine authority. That the Lord’s
meaning when He spoke about divorce was quite clear to His immediate
followers, is evident. Because amongst the “all things whatsoever I
have commanded you”, which they taught to succeeding generations of
Christians, was the doctrine of the absolute indissolubility of marriage.
Accordingly, for the first years of the Christian era, divorce was unheard
of amongst Christians.
Is it to be imagined that the early Christian teachers had mistaken the
Lord’s meaning, and that men of today have rediscovered it? Was it not
a sign of the worldliness and declension of the 4th century that divorce
began to creep into Christendom at that time? Is it not a symptom of
the worldliness and declension of this 20th century that it again rears
its ugly head, even to its appearance amongst professing assemblies of
God’s people, let alone Christendom at large.
We are convinced that an assembly of God which teaches, permits and
recognizes “divorce” and “remarriage” of divorced persons is on a
downward spiritual course, is a stumblingblock to other Christians, and
its testimony is marred before the world. All because it has departed
from the fundamental Christian doctrine of the absolute inviolability
of marriage, the figure of which God Himself uses to typify the
unbreakable and eternal union of Christ the Heavenly Bridegroom, and
His assembly, the church His Bride, Ephesians 5:23-33. How could
God use such an illustration if the marriage tie could be broken in His
sight?
24
 One Flesh

A Note on “Fornication”
1. Fornication never means adultery. The word for “fornication” is
Porneia. The word for “adultery” is moikia. Porneia is always
translated fornication ; moikia is always translated adultery. They
are different words with different meanings. Yet people today take
away the Holy Spirit- chosen word, “fornication”, in Matt. 5:32,
19:9 and put the word “adultery” in its place. Unless they do this,
they can offer no “ground” for divorce. Yet they have no authority
to do so.

2. In fact, the Holy Spirit uses both words in the same verse in the
following Scriptures, and distinguishes the one from the other :
Matt. 5:32, 15:19, 19:9; I Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19; and Heb. 13:4
(R.V.). The term “fornication” does NOT “cover all forms of
sexual evil”. Gal. 5:19 proves this, where four kinds of sexual evil
are distinguished, viz., adultery, fornication, lasciviousness and
uncleanness.

3. As well as meaning pre-marital unchastity, fornication also is used

with reference to illicit intercourse in a “marriage” which is not
valid in the sight of God:

i.- Lev. 18:6-18 describes such unlawful “marriages”.

ii.- Herod’s case in Mk. 6:17-20 is an example of such. Herod had

“married” Herodias. But the Holy Spirit still speaks of her as
“his brother Philip’s wife”, verse 17 also verse 18’, “It is not
lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife”.

iii.- Similar to this is the case in I Cor. 5:1. No Divine instructions

are given concerning discipline of the woman. Therefore it is
evident that she was not in the assembly. Only the man’s side
is dealt with. He is treated as a single man. Why? Because
God did not recognize as marriage that he had “his father’s
wife”. Such connection was unlawful. Accordingly, the proper
word which describes his sin is “fornication”, and this the Holy
Spirit uses.
25
One Flesh

4. Therefore, as fornication does NOT mean adultery, the idea current

today that adultery is a ground for divorce is a fallacy. No one
has the right to substitute “adultery” for the God-chosen word
“fornication” in Matt. 5:32, 19:9.
The following four summaries present in concise form the teaching of
Scripture on this subject. They are taken from the book The Divorce
Problem by W. Fisher-Hunter of 2444 E. Avalon Drive, Phoenix,
Arizona 85016, U.S.A., published by Macneish Publishers, 940
Greenock Road, McKeesport, Penna., U.S.A. They are presented here
so that the truths they contain may reach as wide a circle as possible
amongst God’s people, and be a help to them. We pray that God may
graciously use them to enable us to strengthen the things which remain,
unto the preservation of true Christian testimony according to the New
Testament pattern.

1. The full, progressive revelation of the truth of divorce in

Scripture

i.- Divorce was first legalized and limited by Moses, and permitted
to only the male sex in Israel, Deut. 24:1-2.

ii.- Speaking to the multitudes and to the Pharisees, the Lord Jesus
allowed divorce as originally prescribed for men in Israel to
remain, Matt. 5:32, 19:9.
iii.- Speaking privately to His disciples, the Lord made no allowance
for divorce, and branded as an adulterer the divorced person
who remarries, Mk. 10:11-12.
iv.- Sixty years after the legal, ceremonial and judicial enactments
of the law of Moses had been absolutely set aside for Christians
(Rom. 7:3-4), Paul gives the Lord’s commandment for
Christians concerning divorce: “Unto the married I command,
yet not I, but the Lord, I”’et not the wife depart from her
husband - but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or
be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away
his wife”, I Cor. 7:10-11. Such is the only law of God on this
matter for His people in this dispensation.
26
 One Flesh

2. Nine reasons why Matt. 5:32, 19:9 do not apply to the

Christian!

i.- Because divorce was allowed by Moses, and he never

legislated for Christians. It was permitted to men only in
Israel, Deut. 24:1-2.

ii.- Because the Mosaic statute of divorce was properly only

suitable and tenable for marriage as practiced by the Jews. It
was not divorce as we know it today in Christendom. It was
the annulling of the first part of the marriage covenant in the
espousal or betrothal period. It did NOT apply to the breaking
up of an established marriage. The case of Joseph and Mary is
an example of this, Matt. 1:18-19.

iii.- Because “hardness of heart” is associated with divorce, Matt.

19:8. Who would ever unite hardness of heart with a true
Christian ? This circumstance alone ought to cause every
believer to disassociate himself from the divorce evil.

iv.- Because permission to divorce was given to the male sex only
in Israel, yet we see women today divorcing their husbands
and using Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 as their authority.

v.- Because the term “fornication” does not mean adultery,

but either premarital unchastity, or illicit intercourse in a
“marriage” which is not valid. See introductory note on
fornication.

vi.- Because when Mark recorded the second utterance of our

Lord in ch. 10, 3-9, he omitted the words which permit divorce
for the cause of fornication as recorded by Matthew in 19:9.
Omissions in Scripture are of Divine design. The reason for
this omission is that Mark wrote for gentile readers. Nor is
it without reason that permission to divorce is found only in
Matthew, with its special Jewish application. The reason is
that divorce is connected only with the law of Moses and the
nation of Israel.
27
One Flesh

vii.- Because when Paul wrote to the assembly in Corinth

concerning divorce, he never used the words of Matt. 5:32,
19:9. Instead, he quoted the Lord’s command which prohibits
divorce, I Cor. 7:10-11. This command was the rule accepted
by Christians in the beginning. It is based on Matt. 19:3-8,
Luke 16:18.
viii.- Because when a Christian bases his authority to divorce on
Matt. 5:32, 19:9, he causes contention, creates confusion
and makes void other parts of Scripture which deal with
divorce, and which are at complete variance with the Matthew
passages. These other parts of Scripture are Mk. 10:11-12,
Luke 16:18,1 Cor. 7:10-11.
ix.- Finally, when these passages in Matt. 5 and 19 are interpreted
by the rule of ‘last mention,’ it is found that their teaching is
set aside for the Christian, and superseded by the following:
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let
not the wife depart from her husband -but and if she depart, let
her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let
not the husband put away his wife”, I Cor. 7:10-11.
Surely, in the face of such fulness of evidence just presented,
an honest and unbiased mind should have little difficulty in
comprehending and accepting the fact that the two passages
in Matthew concerning divorce were meant only for Jewish
men under the law of Moses, and were never intended to
apply to Christians.
3. Ten reasons why a Christian should not divorce and remarry!

i.- Because God’s original institution of marriage does not

contemplate divorce, Gen. 2:24, Mk. 10:9.

ii.- Because of the three-fold unequivocal witness of the Lord

Jesus, Malachi and Paul, each restating and confirming that
marriage as originally ordained of God is still binding, and
does not permit polygamy, divorce or remarriage of divorced
persons, Mk. 10:3-9, Mal. 2:14-16, Eph. 5:31.
28
 One Flesh

iii.- Because the permission to put away a wife was given by Moses
to men only in Israel. Moses never legislated for Christians of
this church age. The Lord Jesus permitted divorce for men in
Israel to remain, but only for fornication, and only for those
who had not become His disciples.
iv.- Because the Lord Jesus nowhere gives permission to His
disciples to divorce. Likewise, His apostles never mention
divorce concerning Christians.
v.- Because the Lord Jesus declares a definite prohibition: ‘What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”,
Matt. 19:6 ; and, “Let not the husband put away his wife”, and
“If she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her
husband”, I Cor. 7.11.
vi.- Because it is Divinely declared that “the wife bath not power
(authority) of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also
the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife”, I
Cor. 7:4. But divorce requires that either one of the parties in
marriage takes their body from under the authority of the other,
and so God’s command is flouted. The injunction prohibits
such acting.
vii.- Because a Christian husband is told to love his wife in the
manner and measure that Christ loves the church, Eph. 5:25.
Is divorcing one’s wife consistent with such requirement?
viii.- Because of the principle contained in, “He that loveth his wife
loveth himself”, Eph. 5:28. Is divorcing one’s wife consistent
with loving oneself? Can a person divide himself, or divorce
one part of himself from another part.
ix.- Because the whole idea of divorce is not consistent with “the
true grace of God” wherein a Christian stands, I Peter 5:12.
Consider the matter of forgiveness. In this grace, God expects
His children to be imitators of Himself, Eph. 4.32, 5:1; and of
the Lord Jesus, John 8:10- 11. Although adultery is a grievous
sin, and a reproach which is never wiped away in this life,
yet it is not to be looked upon as an unpardonable sin. Those
29
One Flesh

who divorce put a tremendous obstacle in the path of a guilty

one’s repentance. At the same time, they shut the door to
reconciliation and thus deny the reality of the grace of God.
x.- Because Christians are prohibited from taking one another
before the law courts of the world, I Cor. 6:1. The only way to
obtain a “divorce” is to go to court. Note also the clear teaching
of Romans 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39 : 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. The wife is bound by the
law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead,
she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the
Lord. These Scriptures show clearly that only death can break
the marriage tie. If otherwise, the marriage illustration used by
God in Romans 7 is at fault, which is impossible.
4. A summary - Four Facts which will help produce oneness of mind
according to Scripture!
The solution of the problem caused by the Christian’s misuse of
Matt. 5:32, 19:9 is found in rightly dividing, correctly interpreting,
and properly using the words of the Lord Jesus We believe that the
three summaries given above fulfil these requirements cause:
i.- They show that the term “fornication” used by the Lord Jesus
does NOT mean adultery, the punishment for adultery being
death, John 8:3-7, Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22.
ii.- They prove that Matt. 5:32, 19:9 are Scriptures which belong
to the dispensation of the law, and apply only to MEN under
it who wanted to put away their wives because of finding
premarital unchastity in them.
iii.- They reveal that the Christian’s use of Matt. 5:32, 19:9 as his
or her authority to divorce on the ground of adultery, is an
unwarranted misuse of Scripture.
30
 One Flesh

iv.- They declare, according to the accredited rules for interpreting

the Scriptures, that God’s mind for the Christian on the matter
of ‘’divorce’’ and ‘’remarriage’’ is found in the final words
of the New Testament concerning the matter : “And unto the
married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife
depart from her husband - but and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband : and let not the
husband put away his wife”, I Cor. 7:10-11. His final word
in the Old Testament is equally plain: “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. And did not He make one? Let none
deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord
the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away”, Malachi
2:14-16.
May God Himself make His own word as presented above
“profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness”, II Tim. 3:16. “Now unto Him that
is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless
before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the
only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty, dominion
and power, both now and ever. Amen”. Jude 24-25.

J. Crawford, H.T. Kimber

31
One Flesh

Permanence of Adultery
The purpose of this chapter is to determine whether remarriage after
divorce constitutes a continuous state of adultery or a one time act with
no continuing repercussions.  Although many in the church teach that
remarriage after divorce should not be considered adultery, it is not
the opinion of the majority that will count on judgment day.  It is only
God’s word and pleasing the Lord that matters.

Adultery
The Bible clearly states that those who remarry after divorce “commit
adultery”.  The biblical evidence is as follows:
Matthew 5:32b “. . .causes her to commit adultery (moichasthai); and
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (moichatai)”.
Matthew 19:9b “. . . and marries another, commits adultery (moichatai);
and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery (moichatai)”.
Mark 10:11-12 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery (moichatai) against her; and if a wife herself divorces
her husband and marries another she commits adultery (mochatai)”.
Luke 16:18 “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another
commits  adultery(moicheuei); and whoever marries her who is
divorced from her husband commits adultery(moicheuei)”.
Romans 7:3 “So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another
man, she will be called an adulteress (moichalis); but if her husband
dies she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress (moichalida),
though she has married another man”.
Although Matthew’s Gospel gives one exception for divorce, fornication
(porneia), it can be shown that this exception clause allows only for
divorce in limited instances and the divorce does not include the right
to remarry.  In both passages of Matthew’s Gospel it is claimed that
the person who remarries still commits adultery.  Ten times the New
Testament calls remarriage after divorce adultery.  This is where our
study will begin.
32
 One Flesh

The Verb Tense

One of the main considerations regarding the permanence of adultery is
the use of the verb tense when Jesus pronounces that those who divorce
and remarry commit adultery.  Most often it is the present tense that
controls the meaning of adultery in these sentences.
Matthew 5:32 uses the present active indicative (poiei) “makes her”
in conjunction with the present infinitive (moichasthai) “to commit
adultery”.  This is the reading of the majority text.  The modern eclectic
text uses the aorist infinitive (moicheuthenai).  It then reads that whoever
marries a divorced woman commits adultery (moichatai), present
middle/passive indicative.  The middle/passive form can literally be
translated “cause oneself to commit adultery” or “be an adulterer”.
Matthew 19:9 twice uses the present middle/passive indicative
(moichatai) “to be an adulterer”.
Mark 10:11-12 twice uses the present middle/passive indicative
(moichatai) “to be an adulterer”.
Luke 16:18  twice uses the present active indicative (moicheuei)
“commits adultery”.
Romans 7:3 uses nouns for the word “adulteress”.  The main verb that
modifies this is a future active indicative (chrematisei) “she will be
called”.  The other modifying verb form is the presentactive infinitive
(einai) “to be”.
The purpose of this section is to give the reader a basic understanding
of the present tense as it relates to “kind of action” as well as “time
of action”.  This will be important as we discuss the use of the verb
tense as it relates to the phrase “commits adultery”.  The following
paragraphs on the Present Tense are a summary from the works of
Dana and Mantey - A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament;
Robertson – Grammar of the Greek New Testament; Blass, DeBrunner,
and Funk – A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature.
One important element of tense in Greek is kind of action or
progress.  Time of action is secondary in most cases.  The action
33
One Flesh

may be viewed as continuous, complete, or simply occurring without

reference to progress.  The three fundamental tenses in Greek
are:  present,representing continuous action;  perfect,  representing
completed action; and aorist,  representing undefined action.   The
basic meaning of aorist (aoristos) is “undefined” or “without
limits”.  Continuous action is primarily represented by the present
tense and this is primarily with reference to present time.  Continuous
action in the past is represented by the imperfect, and continuous action
in the future is represented by the future tense (Dana and Mantey, p.
178; Robertson, p. 824).
The fundamental meaning of the present tense is that of progress.  It is
at its root a linear tense.  Although this is the main significance of the
present tense it is not the only meaning.  When the indicative mood is
used with present tense the element of time is more relevant.  In dealing
with the present tense one must consider not only the fundamental force
of the tense, but also the meaning of the verb root, and the significance
of the context (Dana and Mantey, p. 181).

The present tense may be used to express an action simply (punctiliar),

a process (durative or linear), or a state (perfective or perfect)
(Robertson, p. 865, 869).  Although the present tense may be used in
an aoristic sense the present tense more frequently denotes durative or
linear action (Robertson, p. 879).

The present tense may be further broken down into “regular” and
“special” meanings (Dana and Mantey, p. 182).  The most basic
(regular) meaning of the present tense is that of the progressive
present.  This is nearest the root idea of the tense.  It shows action as
a durative progress or state of persistence.  The point of view can be
descriptive, retroactive, or used to denote the continuation of existing
results.  The present tense can also be seen as customary.  This is used
to denote that which habitually occurs, or may be reasonably expected
to occur.  The temporal element is remote since the act is assumed to
be true in the past or future, as well as the present (Dana and Mantey,
p 184).  The regular use of the present tense can also be iterative, that
which occurs repeatedly at successive intervals (Dana and Mantey, p.
185; Blass, Debruner, and Funk, p. 166).
34
 One Flesh

Special uses of the present tense include: Aoristic, Futuristic,

Historical, Tendential, and Static. It is improbable that the present tense
used by Jesus, “commits adultery (moichatai)”, should be considered
Futuristic, Historical, Tendential, or Static therefore these will not be
dealt with at this time.  General truths may be expressed by the aoristic
present.  Much of the time the aoristic present is used where a punctiliar
act takes place at the moment of speaking (Blass, Debruner, and Funk,
p. 167).
One sub-group of the aoristic present is the gnomic present.  The
difference between the gnomic aorist and the gnomic present is that
the present may be durative (Robertson, p. 836).  Some claim that the
statement “commits adultery (moichaai)is a gnomic present.
The reader should not become confused at this point.  There is
a present Greek tense and an aorist Greek tense.  They are separate
forms and tenses.  This being said it must be noted that the present
tense can be translated like an aorist in certain contexts.  The basic
idea of the aorist is it is “undefined” or “unlimited”.  It is punctiliar
(momentary), not linear.  It represents the action as occurring or having
occurred without reference to time.  Blass, Debrunner, and Funk
claim that the action is conceived as a point with either the beginning
or the end emphasized, or the action may be conceived as a whole
irrespective of its duration (p. 166).  The aorist tense is neither past, nor
present, nor future with reference to time.  It relates to “kind” of action
(aktionsarten) rather than “time” of action.  It is not, as commonly, but
erroneously defined, a “once for all” event.

Durative or Aoristic
With the ground work laid for basic uses of the present tense it must
now be decided how the words “commit adultery” (moichatai) should
be understood in relation to the subject of divorce and remarriage.  No
matter what view one takes of the “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9
the question must be answered.  Even those who allow remarriage after
divorce in cases of adultery will have to wrestle with this issue.  Of the
divorces that occur in the evangelical church many occur for a multitude
of reasons where adultery plays no part.  Jesus boldly proclaimed that
remarriage after such a divorce constitutes adultery.
35
One Flesh

Eight times the gospels use the present tense to state that those who
remarry after divorce “commit adultery”.  Romans 7:3 further uses
the future indicative once and a present infinitive once.  It is claimed
that if the present tense in the gospels is understood as durative or
progressive then the remarried person is committing continual or
repeated acts of adultery.  It is then claimed that if the present tense
is to be understood as aoristic or gnomic then the divorcee does not
continue to commit adultery after a subsequent remarriage.  It is not
that simple even if the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) is
aoristic or gnomic, the effects of adultery may still apply to those who
continue in a sexual relationship.
Grammar and syntax regulate the formation and usage of words in
a sentence.  The grammatical rules are derived from analyzing the
various uses of a word in context.  They are determined by how the
word is used.  The grammatical usage is governed internally by the text
itself.  There are no external sources that state how the word “commits
adultery” (moichatai) should be understood.  The understanding of the
word comes from how the word is used in context. Even if every other
use of the present tense in Matthew’s Gospel was aoristic that does
not mean that “commits adultery” (moichatai) in Matthew 5:32 and
19:9 should be taken that way.  The converse is also true.  The present
may predominantly be a progressive or durative tense but this does not
necessarily mean that Jesus uses it this way when He states “commits
adultery” (moichatai).
It is possible that “commits adultery” (moichatai) should be taken
in an aoristic or gnomic sense.  It is also possible that the present
tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) should be taken as durative or
progressive.  There is certainly nothing that would prohibit it from
being understood as durative or progressive.  It is the word interpreted
in context that determines the type of present tense used not some
external definition applied to the text.

Aoristic or Gnomic Implications

If the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) is to be taken
as progressive or durative it would mean that the remarried person
continually commits adultery each and every time they have sexual
36
 One Flesh

relations after the remarriage.  The opposite is not necessarily true if

the present tense is to be taken as aoristic or gnomic.
The aoristic (punctiliar) present sets forth the event as now occurring
(Dana and Mantey, p. 184).  Just because it is now occurring does
not mean that there are no residual effects in the future.   Dana and
Mantey list Acts 9:34 as an example of the aoristic present: “Aeneas,
Jesus Christ heals (hiatai) you”.  In this example the healing is stated
as presently occurring but there will be lasting effects for a period of
time in the future.  The present may combine both aoristic action with
continuous or durative results (Robertson, p. 865).
The gnomic present is actually a sub-group under the aoristic (punctiliar)
present (Robertson, p. 866).  The gnomic present expresses general
truth but this does not mean there are no continuing consequences.  The
gnomic present is timeless in reality, meaning that it is true of all time
(Robertson, p. 836, 864).  It is sometimes called the proverbial present
because this use of the present occurs in proverbial statements or general
maxims about that which occurs at all times. Robertson lists First
Corinthians 15:42 as an example of a gnomic present: “The body it is
sown (speiretai) in corruption, it is raised (egeiretai) in incorruption”.
Certainly these two gnomic presents have lasting implications in the
future.
Another possible option for the present tense “commits adultery”
(moichatai) is the iterative present.  The iterative present represents an
action that is repeated each time.  When applied to “commits adultery
(moichatai) it would mean that each time a remarried couple had sexual
relations they would be committing a further act of adultery.

Romans 7:3
In Romans 7:3 the future active indicative “she will be called”
(chrematisei) is used with reference to the description, adulteress,
applied to the woman who remarries.  The future almost always carries
with it an element of time (Robertson, p. 876;  Dana and Mantey, p.
191).  Instead of mainly representing progress, as do the present and
the prefect tenses, the general perspective is aoristic or punctiliar.  The
context will sometimes require the future tense to be interpreted as
37
One Flesh

progressive but most of the time this is not the case. Romans 7:3 is
most likely an example of a gnomic future which means that it is an act
that is true of all time (Robertson, p.876).
Romans 7:3 also uses the present infinitive “to be” (einai).  Technically
infinitives are verbal nouns and not just a mood (Dana and Mantey,
p.208).  They are substantival in nature and can occupy the ground
of both a verb and a noun.  Paul uses the infinitive as a substantive to
show that if the woman’s husband dies she is not an adulteress if she
remarries.  The implication when taken in context with the first part
of Romans 7:3 is that she is an adulteress if she marries another man
while her first husband is still alive.

Conclusion 
The present tense statement of Jesus “commits adultery” is most likely
gnomic in meaning. This being said there is no conclusive evidence as
to whether the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai)” should
be taken as linear (durative or progressive) or punctiliar (aoristic or
gnomic).  If it is linear then continual adultery would be implied; since
this is a primary meaning of the tense this may be what Jesus was
speaking of.  If the present tense is punctiliar this in no way means the
remarriage is not continuous adultery.  The aoristic present expresses
an action (aktionsarten) as taking place.  It is basically timeless. Every
act of adultery including sexual relations after remarriage takes place
at a specific point in time.  Classifying the present indicative as aoristic
or gnomic does not rule out the existence of future effects or continuing
results from the act of adultery.  The use of the present tense does not
indicate that continuous or repeated acts of adultery do not occur after
remarriage.

A Logically and Biblically Consistent View 

A correct understanding of the present tense is not the only deciding
factor in determining whether those who remarry after divorce continue
in a permanent state of adultery.   Logic used in conjunction with a
biblical view of the one flesh bond and sin must also be taken into
consideration.
38
 One Flesh

A common view is that if one’s spouse commits adultery they are free
to obtain a legal divorce and then remarry.  There are numerous biblical
and logical problems with this view.  The Bible teaches that the one
flesh bond is severed only by death.  The person who has an unfaithful
spouse is to forgive them not divorce them.  Jesus commanded His
followers to forgive others who sin against them seventy times
seven.  How much more should a husband who is commanded to love
his wife as Christ loved the church forgive his own flesh? (Eph. 5:25,
29)
The reason that remarriage after divorce is considered adultery is
because of the nature of the one flesh bond.  When a person remarries
they enter into a sexual relationship with another person outside of
the original God ordained marriage.  Mankind was created to be in a
monogamous sexual relationship.  Anything outside of this is considered
sin.  The claim is sometimes made that remarriage after divorce is an
act of adultery but not continual or persistent adultery.  Jesus claimed
that it is the remarriage of a divorced person that is the cause of their
adultery (Matt.  5:32; 19:9; Mark  10:11-12; Luke  16:18). The idea
being that after the remarriage ceremony both parties will enter into
another sexual relationship.
When a person enters into a sexual relationship outside of the original
one flesh bond it is considered adultery.  It is not the second wedding
ceremony that makes them an adulterer it is the sexual relations
committed after the ceremony that makes them an adulterer.  This
is because divorce does not make one single again.  A legal divorce
does not end a person’s one flesh bond from their first marriage.   If
divorce severed or dissolved the one flesh bond then adultery could not
occur in remarriage.  Adultery occurs in remarriage because the legally
divorced spouse is still married to their first marriage partner.  Divorced
persons who remarry may be recognized by the state as being legally
married but “from the beginning it was not so”.  A legal document
called divorce by the state, from God’s point of view, does not break
the marriage bond, else remarriage would not be called adultery.
If the sexual relations entered into after a second marriage ceremony
are considered to be an act of adultery then every subsequent sexual
act in that relationship would also be considered adultery.  To believe
39
One Flesh

that the first sexual act is adultery while subsequent acts are not is
illogical.  If sexual relations at the beginning of a second marriage are
considered adultery they would continue to be considered as such upon
each encounter. The reason is that the one flesh bond from the first
marriage continues to exist.
Some claim that the second marriage and one act of subsequent sexual
relations breaks the first one flesh bond and establishes a second.  This
is similar to the Erasmian interpretation of the exception clause that
teaches that adultery before a second marriage dissolves the one flesh
bond and allows those who are married the right to divorce and enter
into a second marriage.  Jesus clearly stated that not only can people
commit adultery by having sexual relations outside of the marriage
bond but also a second marriage constitutes adultery. Both are
considered adultery and neither excuses a second marriage.  There is
no biblical evidence to support the claim that a second marriage annuls
or dissolves the first one.
The nature of sin must also be taken into consideration when considering
the durative or progressive nature of the adultery committed by a second
marriage.  It has already been established that a second marriage is
considered adultery.  There is no biblical evidence to support the claim
that it does not continue to be adultery.  If it is believed that it does not
constitute a permanent or persistent state of adultery then there are only
two options: 1).  It is a one time act of adultery where upon committing
this sin it instantaneously ceases to be sin.  This is twisted logic since
committing a sin once cannot cause it cease.  2). It is a one time act of
adultery where upon after committing this sin it slowly ceases to be
sin.   This is also twisted logic since committing a sin cannot cause
it to slowly go away.  Sin neither instantaneously ceases nor slowly
diminishes by continuing in it.

40
 One Flesh

Conclusion

The only logical and consistently biblical conclusion is that since sexual
relations committed upon entering into a second marriage are considered
adultery they remain so throughout the entire relationship.  It is not
only whether the present indicative should be taken as progressive or
aoristic it is the nature of the biblical one flesh bond and the nature
of sin.   Nothing can break the one flesh bond except for death.  Sin
committed continues to be sin until it is ceased and repented of.  There
is no other consistent or logical conclusion.

41
43
44