What is Marriage?

Over the past year or so, many circumstances have come about that caused me to lean toward a path that I never once considered – I might just be “called to the ministry.”

Of course, all Christians are “the called” (Rom. 8:28) and we are all to “minister.” I am talking about a full-time ministry calling and vocation. I just do not know what that looks like yet. Am I to be a missionary? An evangelist? A “helps” minister? A pastor?

There are many roads to ministry, and not all are spelled out explicitly in the Bible. The only two church offices are Bishop (pastor) and Deacon, and both are laid out in 1 Tim. 3.

The top office is Bishop. If you have been in church long enough, you’ll hear something about a pastor being “qualified” or “disqualified” from ministry. If you have, this is the passage:

This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. ² A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; ³ Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; ⁴ One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; ⁵ (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) ⁶ Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷ Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Now, this is quite a list. Most of these are clear, but there is one that seems to be the most controversial amongst the group – “the husband of one wife.” For some reason, there has been and remains tension over this. So, because I am a researcher and truth seeker, I want the Truth of the matter.

The Two Views Over “One Wife”

I first want to point out that “husband of one wife” is a CLEAR statement that women “pastors” are absolutely, unequivocally disqualified. No woman can be a husband, not even lesbians (sorry, LGBTQ “Christians”).

In order to be a “husband of one wife,” the pastor should be married, right? That almost immediately excludes a single man, regardless of our views about divorce and remarriage. A single man should not be pastoring.

I just wanted to get those out of the way.

As far as I can tell, the major contention here is whether or not this statement refers to one wife EVER, or one wife AT A TIME. These come with different standards. If “ever” than a man could never in his past had more than one wife. If “at a time,” then we could allow for those who might have been married prior to salvation, but his wife divorced him to serve in ministry. That is the controversy though, right? A divorced man is not the “husband of one wife,” which means he would have to be “remarried” and that is practically viewed as a heresy by the “ever” group.

This opens up a massive can of worms, because if it is the former, then divorced men cannot serve as pastors. If it is the latter, then there might be an open door for divorcees to continue pastoring.

Divorce and remarriage is the “unpardonable sin,” so to speak. I know pastors who are ex-drug addicts, alcoholics, porn watchers, wife abusers, and criminals, but God forbid they were divorced and remarried!

In my mind, I have to consider the other qualifications on the list and apply the same logic to them, right?

If “husband of one wife” infers “ever,” then how about “sober?” Any ex-drunk who became a preacher uses his previous alcohol abuse as a part of a powerful testimony of the love and grace of God. It’s often a demonstration of how the Lord can change the life of a drunkard and use it for His glory, and praise God for it! I love those kinds of testimonies!

The “ever” view is never applied to “sober.” That one is always “while pastoring.”

How about “blameless”? Have you ever met a pastor who has been without blame his entire life? That one surely does not get the “ever” treatment, and quite honestly, we don’t really even apply it “while pastoring.” I have never met a perfect, blameless, pastor. Have you? Again, we realize that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” That’s why “blameless” is given some leeway – and rightly so! We know when a pastor makes a mistake vs. lives an unrepentant lifestyle of sin. We carve out an exception here, do we not?

The Bible says “blameless,” but we grant grace. The Bible says “sober,” but we grant grace. The Bible says “husband of one wife,” and no grace is given.

Take a serious look at that list and find ONE other qualification that we 1. Apply the “ever” standard to and 2. Don’t make some sort of grace based exception for.

It is only for the “husband of one wife” that the “ever” crowd has no grace.

Now, there is another problem here, and I believe it behooves us to dig into what the Bible says about being a “husband” and “wife.” I wonder if we truly understand what it means to be “married” in the eyes of the Lord.

What is “Marriage”?

It seems to me that what most congregations seek as they bring in a pastor, or what a pastor wants before ordination is a legally binding certificate of marriage. If you are to be the “husband of one wife,” you had better have been married, right?

But I would argue that a marriage certificate signed by a state official is not necessarily a marriage ordained by God. In fact, the state right now allows for same-sex couple to be “married.” Is that God ordained? Of course not!

And let’s not forget that Adam and Eve never stood before a pastor or judge to be legally married “by the power vested in the state of Eden.”

Marriage in the Bible is not a wedding ceremony either. Adam and Eve had no such ceremony.

What, then, is Biblical marriage?

The first mention of “marriage” is in Exodus 21:10, but that is not a particularly defining verse. In fact, it is difficult to pin down a good definition of “marriage.” Most of the time, it was just kind of a thing. The big takeaway is the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb” that will take place between believers (the Bride of Christ) and Jesus at some point up in heaven before the Second Coming (Revelation 19).

Lot’s daughters were “married” (first mention) according to Gen. 19:14. “Married” is mentioned in several contexts, but it is almost a circular definition with “marriage.”

I have long been taught that biblical “marriage” is sexual intercourse.

Now, we can go back to the first couple. Genesis 2:24 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

What is of note, is that neither Adam nor Eve had a mother or father from whom to leave. They were, however, able to “cleave” and “be one flesh.”

Adam called Eve “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” That’s a pretty close relationship!

Eve was literally made from Adam. They were one flesh upon their very creation. Man and wife are also “one flesh.” But what does that mean, biblically speaking?

“One flesh” is used in only 6 verses of the Bible. Save for Genesis 2:24, all references are in the New Testament, and they basically reiterate the same idea as Gen. 2. However, this is one, very glaring exception: 1 Corinthians 6:16 tells us, “What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”

The very next verse says, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”

Ephesians 5:31 says, “for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.”

Notice how this is close to Genesis 2:24, except instead of “cleave unto his wife,” it says “joined unto his wife.” That means they are synonyms. To cleave is to join – and both result in being “one flesh.” You can also become “one flesh” when “joined to an harlot” and “one spirit” when “joined unto the Lord.”

So, joining is a pretty big deal!

Of course, there is the definition of “joined” that means to come together, as in nations “joined” for battle (Gen. 14:8) or pieces of clothing fitting together (Ex. 28:7), but the “joining” of two people becoming “one flesh” is something much more intimate. It is a bond so strong that Christ said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:9) just after reiterating a man “leave and cleave” with his wife and become “one flesh” in verses 7-8.

This very idea of “one flesh” seems to be what God would consider to be “marriage.” It is a man leaving his father and mother to become “one flesh” with his “wife.”

Now, this means that any man who has had multiple sexual partners has had multiple “marriages” and “wives.”

This means any man seeking the office of a Bishop who was not a chaste virgin when he married his current wife is disqualified in the eyes of the “ever” crowd – and that would include doing so prior to being saved. “Ever” means “ever,” don’t you know?

One Wife

Okay, maybe you are not convinced that “one flesh” is marriage. Let’s look at what the Bible says about a “wife.” Perhaps we can find out the moment that God considers a woman to be a “wife,” because that’s really what “husband of one wife” says, right?

Well, the first mention of “wife” is again in Genesis 2:24, linking “wife” to “one flesh” again.

The following mentions merely mention Eve as Adam’s wife, Noah had a wife, Abram had a wife, and then something different: “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife” (Gen. 16:3).

So now we have Abram with TWO wives (I guess he would be disqualified from ministry these days).

In the next verse, “And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.”

Hagar was given to Abram “to be his wife” in verse 3 and “he went in unto Hagar” in verse 4. They became “one flesh.” This connection is pretty consistent!

Genesis 24:67 says, “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

Isaac “took Rebekah and she became his wife.” Keep in mind, this is only a couple verses after they first laid eyes on one another. No courtship. No dating. No ceremony. The only act mentioned was that Isaac “took” (and we can figure out what that means) Rebekah and she became his wife.

It is pretty clear that a woman becomes a “wife” upon becoming “one flesh” with her husband.

But there is a pretty famous exception: “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:20).

We know that at this point, Joseph and Mary had NOT become “one flesh.” Christ was “born of a virgin,” yet this verse calls Mary “thy wife.”

Verse 18 of that same chapter tells us, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

These two were “espoused . . . before they came together,” and Mary was Joseph’s “wife.”

So, the question that is begged here is, what does “espoused” mean? Is that another word for “marriage,” and, if so, does that disprove the “one flesh” idea?

Let us investigate!

What is “Espoused”?

The first mention is in 2 Sam. 3:14, and that is the ONLY mention in the Old Testament. It is when David “espoused” himself to Saul’s daughter, Michal, for the price of 100 Philistine foreskins (a dowry I am thankful is no longer required).

Keep in mind that David at this point was not yet married to Michal. In fact, she still had a living husband at the time who followed his wife “weeping” as she was taken to David (v. 16).

David was “espoused” to Michal in 2 Sam 3:15, but she was not given to him to “wife” until verse 27 of the same chapter.

So, it certainly seems to me, that “espoused” is what we would call, “engaged to be married.” There was certainly a promise of marriage, but it had not yet been fulfilled.

That means that Mary and Joseph were not yet married when the woman was referred to as “wife.” Why, then, was the term used?

Well, unlike our Westernized “no fault divorce” loving culture here in America, those in Israel took their vows seriously. When David was “espoused” to Michal, it was pretty much a done deal. You could bank on it. The same went for Joseph and Mary. It was a foregone conclusion, though the deal had not been completely sealed by becoming “one flesh,” at which point, per the scriptures, they would officially be married.

So, here is another question for the “ever” crowd. If one can actually be the “husband of one wife” simply by being “espoused,” does that mean that a broken engagement is disqualifying?

“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily” (Matt. 1:19).

Here is an unmarried HUSBAND ready to PUT AWAY (a Bible term for “divorce”) his espoused WIFE.

That is kind of a big deal. If we are to be consistent with the “ever” mentality, then “husband of one wife” would mean that, whether a man EVER “put away” a “wife” while being espoused or married and then were espoused or married to another “wife,” they are disqualified from being a pastor or deacon.

Ever have “pre-marital” sex? Disqualified. Ever broken off an engagement? Disqualified.

This is getting difficult!

Put Away

I want to look at divorce, or being “put away.” I realize that the “evers” don’t really want to acknowledge exceptions, but does the Bible?

The first mention of “They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.”

The “they” is a reference to the priests (v. 1). They aren’t to take a wife (become “one flesh”) with a whore (“an harlot,” as in 1 Cor. 6:16) or a “woman put away from her husband” (divorced).

Isaiah 50:1 says, “Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.”

This links “divorcement” with “put away,” in case there were skeptics.

“They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD” (Jeremiah 3:1).

This is saying that a woman “put away” by her husband cannot return to the original man after being married to another.

When giving instruction to the Levites, Ezekiel 44:22 says, “Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.”

Again, this is for the Levite priests, not Christian pastors.

It is not until Matthew 5, that Jesus gives us New Testament wisdom on the matter, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (verses 31-32).

Once again, we have evidence that to “put away” is to “divorce.” What else do we see here? “[S]aving for the cause of fornication” appears to be an exception.

Fornication

The first mention – actually, all Old Testament mentions – of “fornication” has nothing to do with “sex before marriage,” which is the definition used by most Christians today. It is not until Matt. 5:32 that it has anything to do with a marriage at all.

2 Chronicles 21:10-11 first tells us, “So the Edomites revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day. The same time also did Libnah revolt from under his hand; because he had forsaken the LORD God of his fathers. Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto.”

The always respected Webster’s 1828 gives the definition of “fornication” in this passage as, “Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols,” and I do concur based on the context.

That being said, ol’ Webster also defined “fornication” in Matt. 5:32 as “adultery,” despite both words being used in the same verse. It seems that Noah Webster was willing to view them interchangeably, depending on the context.

For those who want to “go to the Greek,” Strong’s defines “fornication” (G4202 – porneia) as “illicit sexual intercourse – 1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; 3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman.”

Like Webster, Strong uses “fornication” interchangeably with what we normally think of as “adultery.”

There is no clear distinction between fornication as “sex BEFORE marriage” and adultery as “sex OUTSIDE OF marriage.”

Jeremiah 3:8 also gives “adultery” as a valid reason for divorce, for that is the reason why God DIVORCED Israel: “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.”

The LORD “put away” Israel and gave her a bill of divorce for committing adultery (does that disqualify Him from the pulpit as well?) just as Christ makes the exception for fornication in Matt. 5:32.

The fornication exemption is also given by Christ in Matt. 19. He also mentions Moses giving Israel a “bill of divorcement.” Check out the full context:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Let’s break this down: The Pharisees ask Jesus if it is “lawful” to “put away” (divorce) for any cause. Christ begins speaking about becoming “one flesh” (another CLEAR indication that this is how he views marriage). Man should not separate from being “one flesh” (but this does not say that God cannot separate them).

The Pharisees then address Moses’ writings on divorcement (Deut. 24, which we will get to later). Jesus answers Moses seemingly allowed for divorce “because of the hardness of your hearts . . . but from the beginning it was not so.” This seems to indicate that God never intended for divorce to be a thing, but the Jews were so hard-hearted, exceptions would be made.

Jesus HIMSELF said “Whosoever shall put away (divorce) his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION (which includes “adultery,” as discussed before)” commits adultery if he marries another. That means adultery is committed if a man divorces his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION.

I am not sure how to be clearer than that.

The disciples basically then follow that up with saying that a divorced man should not remarry. “if the case of the man be so” (divorced, except for fornication) “it is not good to marry.”

Jesus does not agree with their sentiment. “BUT he said . . . “all men cannot receive this saying, save to them to whom it is given.” Again, there are exceptions. ALL men CANNOT. Then he speaks of various types of eunuchs (and this is where the Catholic priests get that clergy cannot be married). Some men are born eunuchs (they are asexual), some are made (by having parts removed), and some choose to refrain from sex to advance the kingdom of heaven (this is more like what Paul was saying in 1 Cor. 7).

If there is one exception for divorce (and this one is according to Christ Himself!), are there more? Let’s look!

Another Exception?

We have the first one, fornication (which includes adultery).

Romans 7:1-4 seems to have another, though “divorce” might not be the best word:

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 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. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

This exception, if you want to label it as a “divorce,” is death. I only put it here because “loosed” is another way of saying “put away.” In this case, the woman is “bound by law to her husband” (married) and is only “loosed” when he dies. If she has relations with another man while her husband lives, she is an adulteress. When he dies, she is free to marry another.

This is often used as an argument against divorce and remarriage, with the ONLY exception to the latter being death.

Here is my problem with that argument – this expressly is a reference to THE LAW. Paul even finishes up by saying “ye also are become DEAD TO THE LAW by the BODY OF CHRIST.” Not only are we to “be married to another,” but that person is Jesus Christ. The law has no bound on us. We have been “loosed” because of Christ.

Since Paul brought up the law, let’s look at what it says. Deut. 24:1-4:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

This is the “divorcement” of which the Pharisees mentioned to Christ in Matt. 19. It is the Jews, particularly the Pharisees whom Paul referred to as “them that know the law” above.

This passage allows for a bill of divorcement, “because he hath found some uncleanness in her” (is this ANOTHER exception?).

What is “uncleanness”? Leviticus 15:25 says, “And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.”

So “uncleanness” could simply be that she is menstruating. Leviticus 22:5 identifies it as touching “any creeping thing.” 2 Sam. 11:4 is a matter of hygiene (likely regarding Bathsheba’s “private parts”).

Duet. 24 is pretty broad in a context like that. It could be for almost any sin or breaking of the law, when you look at the verses on “uncleanness.”

Not only could a man divorce his wife for “uncleanness,” but the woman was then allowed to “go and be another man’s wife.” The only violation of law in Deut. 24 is if a woman is divorced from a second husband and tries going back to her first.

That is the law referenced in Romans 7. A woman who remarries while her first husband is alive is “called an adulteress” (notice it does not say she IS one), but not even the Pharisees could label her such if her husband be dead.

A THIRD Exception

We now have fornication AND death (the latter of which also has a CLEAR exception for remarriage as well.

The final exception for divorce is found in 1 Corinthians 7. Let’s begin at the beginning of the chapter. Be warned, it’s a long one!

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ² Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ³ Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. ⁴ The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. ⁵ Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. ⁶ But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. ⁷ For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. ⁸ I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. ⁹ But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. ¹⁰ And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: ¹¹ But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 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. 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. ¹⁴ For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 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. ¹⁶ For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife. ¹⁷ But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

Paul starts with what “should” be the motivation for marriage. He advocates for abstinence (v. 1) and says that marriage should occur “to avoid fornication.” This is, again, from where the “pre-maritial sex” advocates get their understanding, and it is the case here – but fornication is not EXCLUSIVE to pre-marital sex, as we defined previously.

“Due benevolence” is intimacy. We are to “defraud not,” or purposefully withhold sex from our spouse “EXCEPT it be with consent for a time.” It should never be a punishment, because that can lead to temptation outside the confines of marriage – whether that be an affair or use of pornography.

Paul wishes everyone in ministry could be celibate like him (a “eunuch” as mentioned before). “But if they cannot contain” (from their sexual desires), “let them marry.” Again, that is becoming “one flesh” in the eyes of God. This is not a certificate from the state. Yet again, it is also not a license to run around getting “married” to anyone and everyone.

God, via Paul, tells us, “let not the wife depart from her husband.” This is absolutely NOT God’s design. He wants us to get married once and stay married to that person throughout. THAT is what he “ordained from the beginning.”

That being said, there are the exceptions. People can be biblically divorced because of fornication, death, and we will see here, desertion or “departing.”

“Let not the wife depart . . .” but IF SHE DOES, she should remain unmarried or reconcile with her husband (not remarry first and then try to reconcile, as we dealt with in Romans 7).

In the case of an unbeliever married to a believer, they should stick together. “BUT if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.”

There’s the exception. A believer is “not under bondage” when their unbelieving spouse departs.

The end of the chapter also has some interesting developments:

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. ²⁶ I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. ²⁷ Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. ²⁸ But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. ²⁹ But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; ³⁰ And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; ³¹ And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. ³² But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: ³³ But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. ³⁴ There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. ³⁵ And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. ³⁶ But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. ³⁷ Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. ³⁸ So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. ³⁹ 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. ⁴⁰ But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

I want to pull out verses 27 and 28. “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. ²⁸ But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”

Verse 27 is saying that married folks should “SEEK NOT TO BE LOOSED.” They should do anything and everything possible to remain married. If the divorce has already happened, don’t go looking for another one! “BUT and IF thou marry, THOU HAST NOT SINNED.”

Notice that this is not a reference to a virgin getting married, because that is addressed in the next phrase. This, in context, is a reference to someone who has been “loosed” and then got (re)married. This also comes with a warning – “Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh.”

The issue of becoming “one flesh” with multiple people, is that it gets more difficult to contain your lust. It even drives people to madness. One need only look to the “days of Noe” and “days of Lot” to see the ramifications of sexual deviancy outside the bounds of God’s perfect design.

To remarry is not a sin, but there are fleshly consequences for it.

Paul later defends his choice to remain unmarried, “But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: ³³ But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.”

It is easier to serve the Lord as a single man. The same goes for a virgin female (in verse 34). For the rest of us, I suppose we should be the “husband of one wife,” right?

The Final Verdict

Now that we have explored this topic at length (and it could be lengthier still!), I think we can say some things for certain.

1. “Marriage” in the eyes of God is the act of becoming “one flesh,” and it is the act that makes it so.
2. “Espoused” is a promise to be married, but it is not marriage until consummation.
3. A woman can be considered a “wife” from the moment she is “espoused.”
4. Divorce is a LAST RESORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But there are three exceptions
   1. Fornication (including adultery)
   1. Death
   1. Departing unbelievers
5. If a Christian (no longer under the law) is divorced (particularly if the divorce falls under the exceptions above), remarriage is NOT a sin.
6. If we apply the “ever” standard to the offices of Bishop and Pastor
   1. No “pre-marital” sex (“one flesh”) with more than one woman, because that would constitute more than “one wife.”
   1. No “pre-marital” engagement with more than one woman, because that would constitute more than “one wife.”
   1. No “exceptions” for divorce which means rejection of the words of Moses, Paul, and Jesus, who all allowed for exceptions.
   1. No “remarriage” of any kind (including marrying “one wife” after “pre-marital” sex), despite the clear exceptions in the cases above.

If we go by the “ever” standards, no fornicator or widower could be a pastor or deacon. Abraham, Jacob, and King David would not be allowed to fill a pulpit. Half of the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11 would be “disqualified from the ministry.”

If you are a pastor-in-training or are currently serving who has become “one flesh” with more than one woman and you hold the “ever” stance, you should drop out of ministry immediately lest you be a hypocrite. It is GOD who decides who is and who is not “married,” not whichever local magistrate you submit to.

Now, I absolutely love that pastors have standards in their churches. I respect their hard stances on things that might not be expressed directly in the Bible – like clothing and music standards. If you are a pastor and you won’t allow people with images on their socks, beards, or brown suits to preach, that’s your autonomy.

If you do not want divorced men on the platform, that’s your prerogative. If remarriage is the dealbreaker for serving at your church, I support your decision – but you must be consistent in it.

I only ask that you reconsider your harshness toward “husband of one wife” in light of all of these passages. If it is “ever,” then dozens of pulpits would go unfilled immediately. Hundreds, probably thousands, or young “preacher boys” would have to either remain “involuntarily celibate” or completely leave their “calling” to full time pastoral ministry – and I would be included in that group.

I would humbly ask for the same grace on this matter that you give to the other pastoral qualifications that would be impossible to maintain for “ever,” but focus on how a man is living as he pursues and serves in his ministry.