Could remarriage after divorce not “amount to adultery” in some circumstances?

Q. My question is one seeking clarification. You wrote in this post: “It’s clear from Scripture that God does not like divorce, and so the Bible says many things to discourage divorce, such as the warning that marrying a divorced person can amount to adultery. (This is especially true if someone gets divorced in order to marry someone else.)” First, you’re one of the few people I’ve seen who mentions the “in order to” part. I believe that’s an important point of translation. What I want to know is, based on the phrase “can amount to adultery”: Is it your stance/belief that there is a situation of remarriage after divorce that might not “amount to adultery”?

I would say yes, I do believe that a person who is divorced and then remarries, or someone who marries someone who has been divorced, can have a marriage that is honoring to God and not under any condemnation from God as adultery. I say this after many years of pastoral experience and many years of studying and teaching the Bible.

I would stress once again that there is no biblical sanction to divorce a spouse in order to marry someone else. But consider the much different case of someone who, before they gave their life to Christ, married as a young and immature person and whose marriage broke down because of sin and immaturity on the part of both spouses. What if, many years later, once they had given their life to Christ, been transformed by the influence of the Holy Spirit, and learned the lessons of their first failed marriage, they met another believer and were truly convinced that the two of them could serve God more effectively together than apart? In such a case, after making very sure that all these things were true, I as a pastor would be prepared to perform the wedding (and I have done so in such cases).

My reasoning is that God is not so much against divorce as in favor of marriage. (The reason why God is so against divorce is that he is so in favor of marriage.) So I believe that if the two people I have just describe hypothetically could form a strong, healthy, God-honoring Christian marriage together, then the purposes of God in the world would be much better served by allowing them to live out that ideal as a model and example to others, and as a blessing in itself, than by continuing to penalize them for the rest of their lives for something that happened when they were young and immature and before they knew the Lord.

I recognize that some Christians would still disagree with this, and I acknowledge that they would do so wanting to honor what they understand to be the biblical teaching. But you asked what my understanding was, and so I have shared it with you. I hope this is helpful.

If Jesus didn’t sin because he didn’t have a sinful nature, why did Adam and Eve sin when they didn’t have a sinful nature?

Q. I once held the view that Jesus to be truly human had to have at least the option of sinning. I changed my view when I was taught that Jesus didn’t have a sin nature like us, thinking that without this fallen nature, it would have been impossible for Him to sin. But, the thought came to me that Adam and Eve didn’t have a sinful nature at first, yet they sinned. So, any thoughts?

Your question bears on the issue of whether Jesus on earth was “not able to sin” or instead “able not to sin.” Christians of good will with equal commitments to the authority and inspiration of Scripture hold different views about this. I personally believe that it was not the case that Jesus was “not able to sin” while he was on earth. I believe he was instead “able not to sin” (your original view). But this was not because he did not have a fallen nature or sin nature.

Rather, to borrow the language of Augustine, once we come under the influence of original sin or a fallen nature or sin nature, we are “not able not to sin.” We may do some good and right things in life, but we will also sin, inevitably. We need to be born again, regenerated, so that we will have a new nature that is no longer under this constraint.

Without original sin or a fallen nature, we would then be in the same situation as humans before the fall. To quote Augustine further, in that situation, people were both “able to sin” and “able not to sin.” That is the radical nature of human freedom. So Adam and Eve sinned, even though they didn’t have a sinful nature at first, because they were “able to sin,” in addition to being “able not to sin.”

So what about Jesus on earth? I would describe him as “able not to sin,” and that was true of him because he was completely yielded and obedient to his heavenly Father and because he lived his life in the power of the Holy Spirit. This was true of him to such a degree that I would actually hesitate to describe him as “able to sin” while on earth, although technically that was a possibility, in my view. What I mean is that while it was a theoretical possibility, it was not an actual one, given how absolutely devoted he was to God.

In that way Jesus sets an example for us. We, too, are “able not to sin” when we yield our wills completely to God’s will and live in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did this consistently for a lifetime, which is far more than we can realistically hope for ourselves, but we can at least hope for more and more occasions on which we find that we are “able not to sin” as we are yielded to God, obedient, and Spirit-filled.

And we can also anticipate the wonderful time when, glorified in the presence of God after this life, we will be truly “not able to sin.”

What does the Hebrew word ‘olam mean in the Bible?

Q. What does the Hebrew word ‘olam mean in the Bible?

The Hebrew word ‘olam means “to indefinite futurity,” that is, “for as far into the future as anyone can imagine.” For example, when at the dedication of the ark in Jerusalem David tells the people to “remember [God’s] covenant for ever” and that it is an “everlasting covenant,” he is using the word in both cases. He wants the people to obey the covenant for as far into the future as anyone can imagine, and he is saying that God himself intends to keep the covenant for that long.

But the word can also indicate “from as long ago in the past as anyone can imagine.” Wisdom says of herself in Proverbs, “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was.” In other words, “I was formed (or appointed) from as long ago in the past as anyone can imagine.”

Sometimes the word is used in both senses at the same time. We see this usage in Psalm 90, “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” In other words, “You have been God from from as long ago in the past as anyone can imagine, and you will continue to be God for as far into the future as anyone can imagine.”

In many English Bibles, ‘olam is thus understandably translated with adverbs such as “forever” and with adjectives such as “everlasting.” I certainly don’t see a sense in ‘olam that the time period is finite or expected ever to end.

What is the difference between verse, Scripture, gospel, and Bible?

Q. What is the difference between scripture and verse, between Scripture and gospel, and between Bible and Scripture?

Thank you for your questions. I think the answers will be helpful to many readers.

Let me start with the word Bible. That word describes the collection of books that people of faith believe that God inspired various authors to write at different times in history and that God then gave to the world as a guide to what people should believe and how they should live. The Christian Bible has two parts, the Old Testament (books about things that happened before Jesus) and the New Testament (books about things that happened when Jesus came and afterwards).

Over 1500 years after the Bible was completed (that is, after the last books in the Bible were written), the whole Bible was divided into small sections so that people could find things in it more easily. These small sections are called verses. About 300 years earlier, the Bible had been divided for the same purpose into somewhat larger sections called “chapters.” Using a system that relies on books, chapters, and verses for reference, people can find things in the Bible very quickly. For example, if someone said, “I want to talk about Romans 5:8,” everyone who knew the system and had a Bible or Bible app with them could go right to that small section and read together, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Sometimes people refer to a verse as a scripture. (Note that the word is not capitalized in this usage.) They might say, for example, “There’s a scripture that says that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” This can be confusing, because the word Scripture (capitalized) can also mean the same thing as “Bible.” The word “Bible” comes from the word “books,” while the word “Scripture” comes from the word “writing,” and they both refer to the same thing. Sometimes the plural term Scriptures is used to refer to the writings in the Bible, since there are many different ones.

Finally, the word gospel means “good news,” and it refers to the story of Jesus. It includes his birth, life, teachings, and miracles, and it is especially concerned with his death for us on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. This story is told in four different books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each of these books presents the story from a slightly different perspective, and it is helpful to view it from all of these perspectives at once. When the term “gospel” is used as part of the title of one of these four books, it is capitalized, for example, the Gospel of Matthew. The term not capitalized can also be used to describe the message about Jesus itself, told in summary based on how it is told in these four books.

I hope these explanations are helpful, and I hope that as you read the Bible (that is, the Scriptures), you will hear more and more of the good news about Jesus (that is, the gospel).

Can you lose the Holy Spirit?

Q. Can you lose the Holy Spirit?

I believe personally that when people genuinely put their trust in Jesus as Savior and Lord, the Holy Spirit comes to live in them and does not depart. However, the Bible does warn us that we can “grieve” or “quench” the Spirit.

In his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul describes the kind of behavior that grieves the Spirit: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

And in his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul describes the kind of behavior whose absence or presence can quench the Spirit: “Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.”

So if a Christian is wondering whether they have lost the Spirit, it’s possible that they have grieved or quenched the Spirit in one of these ways. The Spirit has not left them, but the Spirit has withdrawn out of grief or been relegated to a marginal role in their life. I would say to all who might be wondering about this that they should examine themselves to see whether they have done this. They might be harboring bitterness towards another person, for example, or indulging in some activity that they know is wrong. They should recognize what they are doing, ask God’s forgiveness, and change their ways. Then, I believe, they will be able to pray confidently, in the words of William Cowper’s hymn:

Where is the blessedness I knew
When first I saw the Lord?
Where is the soul-refreshing view
Of Jesus and his word?

What peaceful hours I once enjoyed!
How sweet their memory still!
But they have left an aching void,
The world can never fill.

Return, O holy Dove, return!
Sweet the messenger of rest!
I hate the sins that made thee mourn
And drove thee from my breast.

Should Christians pray the imprecatory psalms (the prayers for the destruction of enemies)?

Q. Should Christians pray the imprecatory psalms?

Let me say first that I think “praying the psalms” (that is, making the psalms in the Bible our own prayers) is a good practice. However, people who do this are often uncomfortable praying the so-called imprecatory psalms, in which the psalmists ask God to destroy their enemies.

I devote an entire lesson to the imprecatory psalms in my study guide to the Psalms. It is Lesson 10, on pages 59–63. You can read the study guide online or down load it at this link. I hope the lesson will give you a perspective on the imprecatory psalms that will help you decide whether to include them in your devotional practice of “praying the psalms.”

How do Christian people trace their heritage from Abraham?

Q. Hello, thanks for this blog, I am still confused about the genealogy in the Bible,
we know that Jewish people are linked with Judah (Yahuda)
and Israelis (the twelve sons) are linked with Israel (Jacob)
and Ishmaelites (the Arabs) linked with Ishmael (Ismail)
all those are the sons of Abraham biologically
How do Christian people link themselves with the Abrahamic heritage?

Thank you for your question. Christians do not trace their lineage from Abraham through physical descent, but rather through faith. As the New Testament says, in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, “Just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ so those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.'” Paul says a little bit later in that letter, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

Paul says similarly in his letter to the Romans that Abraham is “the ancestor of all who … follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had.”

John the Baptist said similarly that what mattered was faith, expressed through repentance and confession. He told some people who thought they didn’t need to be baptized, “Bear fruit worthy of repentance. Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” In other words, it was not physical descent that mattered, but genuine faith.

So Christians understand from the New Testament that if they trust in God for forgiveness and new life, they are spiritual descendants of Abraham, who set the example of that kind of trust in God.

Are the people who removed Enoch, Jubilees, etc. from the Bible in trouble?

Q. In the book of Revelation 22:18 it mentions the adding or replacing of things written in the Bible as big trouble. The books that where taken out of the Old Testament; like the Jubilees, Enoch, Gospel of Mary, etc., are these people who removed these books in big trouble?

Actually, the books you list were never “in” the Bible, in the way I would understand that, so they were never taken “out” either.

The canon of Scripture—that is, what books the Bible contains, as far as Christians are concerned—was determined over the course of several centuries. Eventually a consensus emerged about the 66 books that all Christians accept as divinely inspired and fully authoritative. Some specific groups of Christians accept further books as useful and edifying, and in some cases they include them within their Bibles, but in every case they make some distinction between them and the other 66 books. (See this post: Do different Christian communities really consider different books Scriptural?)

As for the books you list, Jubilees and Enoch are accepted as Scriptural by one small part of the Christian church. The Gospel of Mary (which would relate to the New Testament rather than the Old Testament) is not accepted as Scriptural by any part of the Christian church. So as I said, these books, and others like them, were never really “in,” so no one is in trouble for taking them “out.”

For more about the issue you are asking about, see these posts:

Can more books be added to the Bible?

Why were some books removed from the Bible and is it a sin to read them?

Are these books missing from the Bible?

Is the earth only 6,000 years old?

Q. Two questions: (1) Where would I find the animals that were not taken onto the Ark with Noah? (2) Is there some place in the Bible that shows all the years of man, from Adam to today? While scientist have everything at billions of years old, I heard that we have only been here around 6,000 years and it is somewhere in the Bible, can you tell me where to find the truth?

Your questions reflect the very large issue of how faith and reason, or religion and science, relate to one another. They relate to one another in a complex way, and so I cannot answer your questions simply by telling you to look at one place or another in the Bible. Rather, I need to encourage you to come to understand faith and reason as two complementary ways of understanding the world that God created. I have co-authored a book about this that is now available online. It is called Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation, and you can read it starting here. Below is an excerpt from the introduction to the book that I think may describe your own situation. So I hope that the book will be helpful to you as you pursue your questions. Thank you.


Many believing Christians have experienced crises of faith and personal rejections when they have chosen to accept an account of origins that is based on reasoned interpretation of centuries of scientific observation because this account does not coincide with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

These crises and rejections do not have to occur. The two approaches to knowledge characteristic of faith and reason (or religion and science) can be reconciled and used in a complementary way. But unnecessary conflicts nevertheless arise because outspoken proponents of both approaches deny their inherent limitations and extended their claims into the proper realm of the other source of knowledge. This creates an “either/or” or “forced choice” situation in which one must either accept an entirely naturalistic account of origins or else effectively deny that what our eyes see and our instruments measure is anything more than illusion. Neither of these choices will ultimately satisfy an honest intellectual inquirer.

There is a middle position, however. Faith and reason are each qualified to make their own contributions to our understanding of our origins, purpose and destiny, and these contributions can be recognized as complementary. … The two authors of this book have traveled this way, and wish to share with their fellow travelers how they have struggled and what they have learned.

How old was King David when he died?

Q. Is there any record as to how old David, King of Israel, was when he died? 1 Kings just says, “He died at a good old age.” Thank you.

Yes, there is a record. 2 Samuel 5:4 says, “David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.” This means that David was seventy years old when he died.