King David and Bathsheba, foreign wives, being unequally yoked, and marriage, divorce, and remarriage

Thesis: The sin and the forgiveness of King David and Bathsheba's sin of adultery by the LORD God holds some important lessons for our understanding. It represents an important lesson for Christians to understand on the harmony of the mercy and forgiveness of the LORD God from the law of Moses, to the teachings of Jesus, and to the teachings of the apostle Paul on marriage, divorce and remarriage. This understanding is more than a mere cerebral, academic, scholarly exercise. It concerns the obedience of the faith through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus by those who are adversely affected by the intimate, interpersonal human experiences of marriage, divorce, and remarriage today.

Key word forms: accept, others, breakup, put away, gift, given

scope and objective: The scope of this essay will view marriage, divorce and remarriage in the light of the scriptures. The scope of the essay will span the entirety of the testimony of the Spirit from what is referred to as the Old Testament, or the Tanakh by Jews, and the New Testament by Christians. I anticipate that this scope which involves the entirety of the written testimony of the Spirit may incur a protest of that much touted cry of, context! (I will have a word regarding context at the end.*) The idea of context is to limit one’s view to a few verses which make up a passage. Implicitly what this means is that those verses are cut off from the wider context of the entirety of the scriptures. The cry is not convincing. The reason why it is not convincing is because it often reveals an inability or unwillingness to offer an examination or explanation for the edification of the saints. The seeker ought not expect to hear about the harmony of the particular context of a passage with the entirety of scripture. The seeker ought not to expect to hear how or why the testimony of the Spirit in one passage appears to be in contradiction with the passage which is under discussion. Hence, my observation as to the unconvincing call for context. 

There are a few seemingly disparate texts from the scriptures on which this essay will focus. They include 1) the law (Deuteronomy 7):3) against marrying foreign wives, 2) the foreign wives (I Kings 11:1-3) taken by King Solomon, 3) the breakup of the marriages with foreign wives (Ezra 10) by Ezra, 4) the adultery, murder and marriage of King David and Bathsheba (II Samuel 11 and 12) and the remarriage of Bathsheba to David, 5) the teaching (Matthew 19) on marriage, divorce, and remarriage by Jesus, and 6) the teaching (I Corinthians 7) by the apostle Paul on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. 

Here are some facts and observations which will be woven into the fabric of this essay.

1. There was no punishment of death or other in the law of Moses for marrying foreign wives.
2. The law of Moses did not command for marriages with foreign wives to be broken up.
3. The break up by Ezra of mixed marriages with foreign wives appears to be in harmony neither with Nehemiah’s response to the same situation nor with the law or with respect to King Solomon and his foreign wives.
4. The marriage of David and Bathsheba appears to be in harmony neither with the law of Moses on the stoning to death of adulterers, nor with law of Moses to give a certificate of divorce to a wife to send her away.
5. The teaching on foreign wives and the marriage of David and Bathsheba are in harmony with, both the teaching of the Lord Jesus and the teaching of the apostle Paul on marriage, divorce and remarriage and being unequally yoked with unbelievers.

The essay will not delve into single word definitions in isolation in their original language. There are resources which have been compiled in that area of study for readers who are interested. The objective of the essay is to present a message which is for the understanding and edification of the saints in Christ. Hopefully the essay will be a message of reassurance for some people concerning their past, current or future marital status. Hopefully the essay will be a message of confidence for others who find themselves willing to share their understanding when they are asked about these matters, but who find themselves at a loss for words.

questions and observations

Here are some questions which may be helpful in the examination of these subject texts from the scriptures. The unity and the harmony of the testimony of the Spirit ought to suggest for us that there is an intersection and a connection between those instances concerning Israel and the law of Moses on marriage and the entirety of the scriptures. The challenge for us is to draw out those intersections and connections and examine them as to how they relate and pertain to the saints in Christ. I will use throughout the essay the references Q1, Q2 etc., to refer the reader back to the questions. I want to avoid the creation of speculative scenarios. The weighty nature of David and Bathsheba's adultery and marriage is sufficient to far outweigh and render as needless the creation of speculative scenarios. The reader is urged to read the scriptures for guidance and understanding from the Spirit. 

Q1.   What was the extent of the enforcement of the law against marrying foreign wives?

Q2. Was the breakup of marriages with foreign wives by Ezra according to the commandment of the LORD?

Q3.   What is the danger of entering into marriage with an unbeliever?

Q4.   Where is the harmony between King David's marriage with Bathsheba and the teaching of Jesus and Paul on marriage, divorce, and remarriage?

Q5.   What is the lesson between the law against marrying foreign wives and the admonition for believers in Christ not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers in marriage?

There are some characteristics about the conversations, discussions, and studies concerning the relationships of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Some of those characteristics include confusion, zeal, obstinacy, pride, knowledge, compassion, love, wisdom and more. If there is ever a reference to the scriptures in the discussion those characteristics often reveal something about the tension, and in the minds of some discussion participants, an outright contradiction between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the apostle Paul. Typically any reference to David and Bathsheba is not even on the fringes. Disciples are heard to claim that they follow Jesus on marriage and divorce. Others are heard to declare that they follow Paul on marriage and divorce as though the Spirit revealed a teaching on marriage and divorce to Paul which was different or in contradiction with the teaching of Jesus. 

Personally, I have never heard a reference, or at least a substantive reference, to King David and his adultery with Bathsheba much less Bathsheba's remarriage to David. The relationship between King David and Bathsheba began with lust and and adultery and culminated in murder. It is also true that David and Bathsheba continued in a marriage relationship as husband and wife. It was a marriage blessed by the LORD God with the birth of Solomon (Yes, it is acknowledged that there was the death of the child conceived through their adultery.) who was to ascend to the throne to succeed his father on the throne in Jerusalem. These are basic facts concerning David and Bathsheba, but it is one thing to understand  and accept these facts. It is quite another, different, and difficult matter to accept these facts about others who do not have the testimony of David as, “a man after God’s own heart” or the status of a king. The mere discussion of divorce and remarriage is as upsetting for some people as is the struggle to understand and to accept the will of the LORD God according to the written testimony of the Spirit. Joyfully, his will on the matter, like all his commandments, is not burdensome. 

So how can it be that David's adultery and subsequent marriage to Bathsheba is rarely, if ever, a part of scholarly study and discussion let alone Sunday morning Bible study? Why is the testimony of the Spirit concerning David and Bathsheba in this showcase display of sin, forgiveness and marriage so overlooked, avoided and ignored by the saints in Christ? It is not known but I will go with the assumption (the scriptures do not suggest otherwise) that Bathsheba, unlike her husband Uriah the Hittite, was not a foreign wife for David. Even so the law did not demand that a man exercise his right or the opportunity under the law of Moses to send off or put away his wife such as through a separation or divorce in a lawful marriage or even the unlawful marriage involving foreign wives. The decision to exercise that right or opportunity was an unspoken, non-obligatory understanding among the children of Israel. Think of Joseph (Matthew 1:19) who thought to put away Mary secretly, but he decided against it.

So, perhaps there is a corollary with the unspoken, non-obligatory understanding between the command/instruction for the children of Israel to not marry foreign wives and the command/instruction for Christians to be not unequally yoked with unbelievers in marriage. The importance of this is in the reality that there are various views that are taught and even some actions taken on marriage, divorce and remarriage by some saints in Christ. The views and actions which are accepted do not necessarily affect those who impose their views and actions, but they affect those on whom they impose those views and actions. One such view and action includes the severing of fellowship by the church from a brother or sister who marries an unbeliever or marries a man or woman whose divorce was "not scriptural." (I cringe and sigh a muted rage at such a farcical notion of men.) Perhaps even worse is the notion to "play it safe" by preventing or to breaking up a relationship or marital union because such a notion does not even purport to have any connection or foundation in the scriptures.

the law against marrying foreign wives, King Solomon and his foreign wives, and the breakup of the marriages by Ezra

The LORD God instructed Moses to command the children of Israel not to take foreign wives (Deuteronomy 7:3) from among the people of the land of Canaan. Nonetheless the children of Israel took wives from among the native peoples. The testimony of the Spirit informs us that King Solomon took foreign wives. The effect on King Solomon of taking foreign wives is noted by the Spirit, “his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been” (I Kings 11:4).

After the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile some men informed Nehemiah, the governor, and Ezra, the priest, that there were mixed marriages with foreign wives among the people. The testimony of the Spirit informs us on the respective decisions and actions of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 13:23-31) and Ezra (Ezra 9) concerning the mixed marriages. The scripture attests to Nehemiah's fury concerning the matter. It also notes his reference to King Solomon and the foreign wives which Solomon took for himself. The scripture attests to Ezra's decision to call for the marriages to be broken up. The scripture does not state whether Nehemiah did the same as Ezra with the people. It does seem to indicate that Nehemiah’s actions were limited and directed specifically towards the priests.

While the matter concerning the breakup of those marriages by Ezra is often cited, there is one important observation which is overlooked. There is a lesson which is often hurriedly, and mistakenly extracted and applied from Ezra's breakup of those marriages. The lesson being that a no less similar breakup of a marriage is what must be done when it is determined that this is the way to make right the marriage union of the unbeliever as one husband and one wife. However Moses did not proscribe in the law (Q1,Q2) that the men who took a foreign wife were to send her away to be rid of her much less that he should be stoned to death for having taken a foreign wife. The scriptures do not attest that a prophet was sent to King Solomon to command him to rid himself of his foreign wives. There was no condemnation or punishment cast on Solomon for his foreign wives. Certainly there was punishment alright. It was the self-incurred punishment when Solomon’s foreign wives turned his heart away from being wholly devoted to the LORD God (Q3, Q5).

The testimony of the Spirit informs us that Ezra was a priest. Ezra “set his heart to study the law of the LORD and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel.” Nehemiah was not a priest. He was governor over Judea and Jerusalem. It is significant that while Ezra went to God in prayer much is also said about the voices from the men to whom he listened and who pressured him to take action against the marriages with foreign wives. Nehemiah, on the other hand, was no less upset than Ezra over the mixed marriages. Nehemiah's reference to King Solomon's multiple marriages with foreign wives at the very least suggests that he had a knowledge of the written testimony of the Spirit. Nehemiah would also know that the LORD never instructed Solomon to get rid of his wives. This was the very same written testimony which the Spirit informs us that Ezra sought to study. Yet the Spirit does not inform us that Ezra referenced the scripture nor Haggai or Zechariah, two of the prophets (Ezra 5:1) who were with Nehemiah and Ezra in Jerusalem. However muted the fact may be it is clear that King Solomon was not directed to get rid of his foreign wives as Ezra did with the people. Nevertheless Solomon is a showcase display of what happens when the children of Israel took a foreign wife, their hearts were turned away from God (Q3).

the adultery, murder and marriage of King David and Bathsheba and the remarriage of Bathsheba to David

The scriptures do not attest that King David took foreign wives as did his son King Solomon when he ascended to the throne in Jerusalem. The scriptures attest that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba. He was not put to death for his adultery as Moses commanded in the law. The scriptures attest that King David committed the murder of Uriah. He was not put to death for this murder. The scriptures attest that King David continued to reign as king. The scriptures attest to King David's contrite heart, confession, and repentance for his sin against God.

King David continued to live with Bathsheba as husband and wife. King David was forgiven the sin of his adultery and his murder. The scriptures do not attest, but a plausible inference can be drawn, that Bathsheba's sin of adultery was forgiven, too. The scriptures do not attest to King David being commanded by the prophet Nathan to put away Bathsheba and give her a certificate of divorce* as, Jesus said, Moses permitted in the law. Jesus confirmed and upheld the law of Moses concerning divorce and remarriage. What the law did not allow was the modern day notion of divorce for the cause of fornication, adultery or immorality. The law was specific and clear for the children of Israel. The adulterers were to be put to death. (* The certificate of divorce was the second part to ending a marriage. The first part was "to put away" one's wife, a term which is often erroneously translated as divorce. The second part was for the husband to give his wife the written certificate of divorce which allow her to become another man's wife (Deuteronomy 24) in accordance with the law of Moses).

Apparently it was not for the prophet Nathan to tell King David what David had received from God together with Bathsheba with whom he committed adultery (Q4). What David received was a gift. The gift was from God. It was for David, and no one else, to decide either to accept or reject the gift of God. It was for King David to determine whether or not he would keep Bathsheba as his wife. After David was reassured by Nathan that God had forgiven David his sin he could well have chosen to give Bathsheba a certificate of divorce. He could have put her away or sent her away because, as the Spirit attests, it was done secretly. The matter was likely not known to others. David could have absolved himself of the problem of that sinful adulterous woman Bathsheba as his wife. Truly this would have been a feeble, hypocritical, false gesture of pious, self-righteousness for, as some would say, David to get right with God. King David could have continued to provide for her for the rest of her life in the same manner as he did for his concubines whom his son Absalom had gone into to assert his defiance and insurrection against King David.

This was all uncharted territory for David which is why I also mention the preposterous notion of him giving Bathsheba a certificate of divorce _ when the matter in accordance with the law called for the two of them to be stoned to death! David knew what he could do under the law, had he been the one against whom the sin of adultery had been committed just as much as he knew what could be done to him under the law.

There is nothing in the written testimony of the Spirit which called for the breakup of marriages with foreign wives. There is nothing in the testimony of the Spirit which called for David to break up his marriage with Bathsheba in order to make things right before the LORD God. It is pleasing to the LORD God when a sinner calls upon the name of the LORD to come and to be accepted by the LORD. David found himself fully at the mercy, love and compassion of the LORD God knowing and feeling sickeningly  and keenly aware that David had no right to claim or demand anything for himself from God. David called upon the name of the LORD God.
Instead David accepted God’s forgiveness of his sin and accepted and kept Bathsheba as his wife as much as he also accepted and kept the gift of the LORD God's mercy, and grace. In the parlance of youth-speak yuck or eew may make one feel good or better than such sinners, but it is not to be mistakenly equated with understanding much less accepting and teaching the love, mercy and grace of God. Our response to this reality concerning David and Bathsheba and the LORD God's response has nothing to do with the emotional highs or lows of our feelings and has everything to do with our understanding and acceptance of the will of the LORD.

There is nothing in the written testimony of the Spirit which called for the breakup of marriages with foreign wives anymore than for David to breakup his marriage with Bathsheba in order for a sinner to make things right before the sinner who calls upon the name of the LORD can come and be accepted by the LORD. I anticipate and I understand that some brothers and sisters may question David's confession and repentance, and that is a matter for them to further examine in their struggle to understand the love of God.

The matter of King David's murder and adultery was made known by the LORD God to the prophet Nathan. So, too, King David's relationship with Bathsheba in the aftermath of their sin became known to Nathan. It is understandable if there is some consternation concerning David, but he did not, as some may think, get away with it. The enmity between David's children was a constant reminder of the peace in his family which had been lost as the result of his sin. David and Bathsheba received something which was not from men, but from God. It was a gift from God. It was not something which David expected from God. This same lesson of God’s love, mercy, forgiveness and compassion towards David and Bathsheba would play out over and over in the history of Israel (Q1). It is difficult to say whether Israel learned and accepted the lessons concerning God's forgiveness of their beloved King David's sin. It may be no less difficult to say whether individual Christians and those among them, like Nehemiah and Ezra, who lead, teach, and preach to the body of believers have learned and accepted the lessons of love, mercy and forgiveness of God.

The reference to Israel as "the holy race" by the men who came to pressure Ezra may suggest that they, too, had missed and overlooked the lessons of David and Bathsheba. The solution to the problem of mixed marriages in Israel according to the men who came to Ezra was to break up the marriages. The men who had entered into those mixed marriages could in this manner absolve themselves of all obligations towards their foreign wives and children.  They were eager to do with their foreign wives what the LORD God never commanded concerning King David and Bathsheba's remarriage, or King Solomon's foreign wives. It would appear that there was nothing learned of God's forgiveness and mercy and compassion for Israel's own sins, a gift from God, for their sins against the LORD. It appears it was nothing more than self-righteous piety, a lofty notion of purity, and a holy race in the carnal minds of those men who influenced Ezra.

They were eager to do with their foreign wives what the LORD God never commanded concerning King David and Bathsheba's remarriage, or King Solomon's foreign wives.

the teaching (Matthew 19) on marriage, divorce, and remarriage by Jesus

The Pharisees had one sole rhetorical question concerning wives for Jesus. Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?  Their own answer to their rhetorical question was to point out for Jesus that Moses gave the command which allowed them to put away their wives and give them a certificate of divorce (Mathew 19:7).

The response from Jesus to the Pharisees in Matthew 19 appears to have shocked the disciples. They appear to have concluded that the teaching of Jesus was too severe and impossible for any man to follow obediently. Their reaction in verse 10 seems understandable: "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." Their reaction was overboard. They were not thinking about a man being able to divorce or to remarry. Their conclusion was that it is better not to marry _ at all.

A brief word is in order concerning the reference from Genesis 2:23, 24 which Jesus made to the Pharisees.

And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

This reality check reference to Genesis 2:23, 24 is often seized as nothing less than the law which predates the law of Moses and all others and by which some men, like Nehemiah and Ezra, can command the breakup of marriages. Yet a no less similar parallel reality reminder exists between the commandment of Moses for the children of Israel not to marry foreign wives and the actual reality that they did take foreign wives and the fact, as in the case of King Solomon, that there was no death sentence or instruction to severe the marriages with foreign wives.

Jesus continues with his response to "this statement" in verse 11. The statement in question would appear to be, not the reply which Jesus gave to the Pharisees. The Pharisees’ own limited interest was about a man being permitted to ---divorce--- in verse 9.  The reply by Jesus appears to be to the reactionary statement made by the disciples in verse 10. It is this reactionary statement “to not ---marry---” of the disciples which not "all men" can accept. The prior statement by Jesus to the Pharisees was of a few and certain men who can exercise their right under the law to give a written certificate of the divorce to their wife.

The response to the statement of the disciples from Jesus is of eunuchs (Matthew 19:11-12). Eunuchs were denied marriage neither in reality nor by the law of Moses. Whether or not they are accepted  as spouses or whether or not they choose to seek and enter into marriage is a matter for them and no one else to determine. They can and are free to accept to marry or not to marry whether 1) they were born eunuchs from their mother's womb, 2) they were made eunuchs by men, or 3) they make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whether it involves a eunuch or other men, the choice of whether to accept to marry or to accept not to marry (either as first time marriage or a subsequent marriage) is their choice to make regardless of how they became eunuchs and without the say or pressure of other men. If they choose to accept to marry, that is their gift to accept. If they choose to accept not to marry, that is their gift to accept. It is for no one to make that determination for them. It is their gift from God.

The statement, Jesus declares, is not one which can be accepted by all men. Those who do accept the statement are able to do so because it has been given to them. It is for every one of them to choose to accept it or to choose not to accept it. It is not for anyone, but the individual who is affected, to choose to accept it or not to accept it. Jesus said, “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Who is it that gives them the ability to accept it? Is it from man or is it from God? If it is from God it is a gift from the Divine, not man. What does this analogy of eunuchs have to do with divorce, and by association, divorce and remarriage? How does it, as well as the matter of King David and Bathsheba, bear on this discussion?

Yes, it does bear on the discussion. The reason why the matter of King David and Bathsheba, unpleasant and discomforting as it may be for some people, bears on the discussion is that it clashes against false and mistaken notions of holiness, piety and righteousness. It clashes against all human and carnal attempts to make things right by breaking up marriage unions and relationships and the condemnation of believers marrying unbelievers. The Spirit does not inform us on such notions being taken up or cast on either David or Solomon concerning their respective marital relationships with that of adulterers and foreign wives. The testimony of the Spirit concerning the marriage of David with Bathsheba and the remarriage of Bathsheba with David speaks loudly to the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees and the response of Jesus to his disciples. What it shouts out is what Jesus asserted, namely, that "only those to whom it has been given" can accept what no one but God has given them.

Jesus, always shaking us out of our cozy comfort chose to adorn his message with the most unlikely and unseemly, not unlike the world and the church look on the divorced and remarried, with, _ eunuchs. "He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." Who is it that needs and who is it that God gifts, but the unsightly adulterers, and those who would actually join themselves with foreign wives and unbelievers, and, least of all, _ eunuchs? Who can accept his gift? Let him accept it. It is the gift of God to be joined with the one whom they choose even if (remember the broken peace in David’s house) with consequences.

the teaching (I Corinthians 7) by the apostle Paul on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and being unequally yoked with unbelievers

The apostle Paul presented his teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage in his first letter to the Corinthians. It was not a different teaching nor was it in contradiction with the teaching of Jesus (I Corinthians 7:1-16, 25-40). Paul addressed 1) the unmarried and widows (8-11), 2) the unbelieving wife/believing husband, and believing husband/unbelieving wife (12-16), 3) fathers and their virgin daughters (25-38), and 4) the wives with deceased husbands (39-40). There is a parenthetical inclusion of the circumstance in which one was called whether as circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free (17-24) and which, if one wishes to apply to marriage, may have merit, but given the lessons above concerning King David and King Solomon, is needless. What some see as the seeming contradictions in the teaching on marriage, divorce, remarriage between the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul was not a surprise to the Holy Spirit. I believe this is the reason for the words of the Spirit through Paul, "not I, but the Lord" (10) and "I say, not the Lord" (verse 12) to indicate to his readers the unity and harmony in the interchangeable and immutable teaching between Jesus and Paul.

The apostle Paul makes it clear at the start of his message in I Corinthians chapter 7:6, 7, namely, that what he says is 1) "by way of concession, not of command, and 2) "each man has his own gift from God.” The significance of Paul’s use of the term gift seems to be his allusion to the words of Jesus as to what “is given” only to those who can accept it. Paul ends his message stating it is "an opinion" and "in my opinion" (verse 25, 40). Let’s be clear. An opinion from the apostle Paul is no less wisdom than the commands of the LORD God. It is like the wisdom given, in the form of a command, to not marry foreign wives. The only difference being that in the former God allowed the individual to exercise their God-given wisdom, in the latter God exercises his divine wisdom in the form of advise from Paul, but in both instances it is for the individual to make and accept their choice and the familial consequences which may come with it. Even then, as we have seen, the LORD God intervened with his wisdom concerning his own command for adulterers to be stoned to death to give David and to teach a greater lesson on the love, grace, and mercy of God.

Similarly Paul gives some reasons for his message to the married,  unmarried, and virgins, namely, that it was because of "immoralities" (verse 2) and because "you will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you," (verse 28) and what is "for your own benefit," "is seemly," and "undistracted devotion to the Lord" (verse 35). Again, let us suppose for the moment that the reader has no clue what could possibly be the gift to which Paul alludes. One thing is clear. It is a gift which God, as Paul notes, has given to each man.

Given Paul's thorough cautiousness to make clear his attitude in addressing the different group segments the same caution must be kept in mind when Paul states that a wife whose husband is dead “is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord" (verse 39). If we have learned, understood and have accepted the lessons concerning the law and the non-enforcement on those who took foreign wives, then the same understanding would be appropriate about marrying "only in the Lord." The apostle Paul did not give a hard law or command to be enforced by the church on a believer who marries a wife or husband who is not in the Lord. Paul states that what says is by way "not of command" (6) and "not to put a restraint upon you" (35). Paul delivers some pointed words in I Corinthians 6:15-20 and II Corinthians 6:14-18 concerning the believer being bound together or unequally yoked with unbelievers.

There was an instance (I Corinthians 5:9-13) in which the Corinthians misunderstood Paul. They misunderstood his instruction for them not to associate with immoral people. Paul corrected their misunderstanding. They were to abstain from associating with any so-called brother in Christ, not the unbelievers in the world.

A similar mistakenly conclusion has often been drawn that being unequally yoked with unbelievers means that believers are not to marry unbelievers. Paul instructed the saints in Christ in Corinthians who were joined with unbelievers in their marriage to stay in that marriage as long as the unbeliever was willing to continue in the marriage with the believer in Christ. A well-known reality in some marriages is where one spouse may engage in practices which the believer will simply determine that they can not and will not engage or participate in those practices with his or her spouse. It is for no one to determine how the Spirit in that individual is teaching and leading them in their marriage or in the salvation of their spouse.

conclusion

There is nothing greater or more intimate than a man and a woman joined together in marriage. This has been true, Jesus said to the Pharisees, from the beginning. Yet as much as God created woman for man God has always revealed his will that it is he whom we are to love with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength.

The children of Israel were given specific instruction to maintain fidelity in their marriages between husband and wife. Just as important they were not to marry foreign wives. King Solomon took foreign wives for himself. They turned the fidelity of his heart towards God away from God. The children of Israel, perhaps to imitate their king, took foreign wives, too. Although Moses had written in the law the prohibition against marrying foreign wives the same law does not contain any instructions as to the punishment for those who married foreign wives. They were not put to death. They were not instructed to put away or send away their foreign wives.
After the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile it was Ezra, the priest, on the insistence of certain me and their lofty notions of "the holy race," who determined that the children of Israel should break up their marriages with foreign wives with their children and be rid of them. Nehemiah, the governor of Jerusalem and Judea and a contemporary of Ezra had mixed marriages with foreign wives among the people who were with him, too. Nehemiah cited for the people the decision of King Solomon to marry foreign wives. They turned his heart away from God. Nehemiah did not order the break up of the mixed marriages.

After the sin of adultery King David took Bathsheba as his wife and after he had her husband Uriah murdered. David was never put to death neither for his adultery nor for the murder of Uriah. He was not ordered to put away, send away or get rid of Bathsheba. What David received was a gift, not from man, but from God. The gift was not just his life and the forgiveness of his sin, but Bathsheba as his wife.

Here are some takeaways, some lessons for our learning, from David and Bathsheba, foreign wives and being unequally yoked with unbelievers and which are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus and the apostle Paul on marriage, divorce, and remarriage and the entirety of the scriptures?

1    The commandment of the law (such as, do not marry foreign wives) or apostolic instruction (such as, be not unequally yoked with unbelievers) does not nullify or invalidate the grace, mercy and love of God. This seems to be evident in the matter of David and Bathsheba and King Solomon.

2    Do not mistakenly equate human fleshly notions of severing relationships and marriages and enforcing divorces as what is pleasing and right and on a par with the testimony of the Spirit and the will of the LORD God.

3    Do not presume to deny or to question the man or the woman who accepts what has been given to him or her by God. Whether to marry, to remarry, or to remain single is a gift from God.

The matter of David and Bathsheba may be just too much for some discussions concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It may be just too much for them because with the direct knowledge and engagement of the LORD God through his servant, the prophet Nathan, David went from marriage, to adultery, to remarriage. There was no divorce in order for David to marry Bathsheba. It was a remarriage for Bathsheba. The lofty and pious notions of breaking up marriages, severing relationships with unbelievers and the church breaking fellowship with a brother or sister who marries an unbeliever are the trifle, carnal notions of men, not of the LORD God. The LORD God has a way of taking what may seem to us as absurd or as being wrong, but when we so much as catch a glimpse of his wisdom we can not resist rejoicing in his ways. Rejoice, and again, I say rejoice.

"Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given . . . He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
*a word about context

It is intended as the ultimate call out, the ultimate thrown down to which there is supposedly no response, or at least, not one that would meet the requirements of context.

Yes, context is important. It's just that the way it is often plied it is a hollow and worthless claim. I can see Jesus and Paul being silenced (as though they could be silenced) by a jeering mob chanting, context! context! context!

When Jesus sent out the disciples on a preaching campaign he told them to stay in the home that received them, because “the laborer is worthy of his wages.” The champions of context would take a double shot at Jesus. There is, as anyone who has read the scriptures cover to cover several times or who has done every Google search possible can say, there is no such verse in the Tanakh, the Old Testament.

Furthermore there are some passages which do talk about the laborers wages. The laborer in question in those passages is one who hires himself or herself out for the wheat harvest or other crop. The ---context--- has nothing to do with Galilean fisherman wannabe preachers showing up uninvited to _ preach? Where is the service of benefit which they bring to the one feeding and housing them? Yet this is the interpretation and application which Jesus gave from a non-existent verse.

Then the apostle Paul took those same words spoken by Jesus and applied them to the young preachers, Timothy and Titus. Paul went even farther. Paul cited (I Corinthians 9:9) the passage about not muzzling the ox (Deuteronomy 24:1) who threshes the wheat. Paul challenges the standard and accepted understanding of the passage and states, “God is not concerned about ox is he?” Paul interprets and applies the passage to preachers.

Paul again goes even farther. He applies it to elders (I Timothy 5:17) who are worthy of double honor.

So much for the touted, hollow shouts about context as the ultimate dismantling device of a discussion point which may not suit us.