|
Divorce and remarriage has been a very troubling issue, especially in the last few decades. Why can't we understand this issue alike? Is the Bible unintelligible? Hopefully, we all want to come to an understanding of the scriptures on this important subject and I have no doubt but that such was Brother Jenkins' intent - to help us understand. Nevertheless, in the November 2006 issue of "Gospel Truths" he made some comments that should not go unchallenged and he has drawn some conclusions that need to be rethought. Let us now try to forget what man has said and look to the scriptures to find what makes sense, which will be the truth.
I have debated divorce and remarriage on the Internet almost constantly for about seven years and I have heard and considered a lot of different doctrines and arguments. But when I read Jesse's first statement, which was completely new to me, I was shocked. He said, "In Deuteronomy 24:1, 2, the writing of divorcement was not an integral part of a divorce. It was a statement that he had divorced her and the provision by which the divorced woman could marry another. If a man sent his wife out of the house, but refused to give her the writing of divorcement, she would nevertheless be a put away (divorced) woman."
The first part of the paragraph above was only asserted and assumed to be true (no supporting evidence); nevertheless it was used as proof to support the idea that a woman that was merely sent away, without the bill of divorcement, would nevertheless be divorced. This is a classic case of circular reasoning. At any rate, as should become evident to you as you read this article, the last sentence in the paragraph above would be true if the word "divorced" had not been added in parenthesis. Jesse used the word "put away" about 12 times in his short article and each time he asserted that it means divorced. The word apoluo, usually translated "put away", is used about 90 times in the New Testament, yet several highly respected versions, including the ASV, YLT and Darby, never translate it as divorce. Only in a few instances is marriage even under consideration. While merely the phrase "sending away" has evidently come to mean "divorce" in some cultures, and so translated in many new versions, it is not a scriptural divorce. This means the marriage is yet intact.
It seems that Jesse is seeking to do two things: 1) to defend his own position; that no divorced person can marry unless they did the divorcing; and 2) to defeat a spin-off from the position that he holds - "mental divorce," which allows more remarriages than Jesse is willing to allow.
I see three basic errors in Jesse's article: 1) his conclusion that "put away" and "divorce" are exactly the same thing; 2) that a divorce actually takes place when a husband sends away his wife, even if no "bill of divorcement" is given; and 3) that a divorce and remarriage results in adultery unless it was for adultery.
I think Jesse understands that Jesus did not and could not have contradicted the Law, which allowed divorced persons to marry. This means that what Jesus taught those who asked Him the original question about "putting away", did not contradict the teaching that a divorced person could "go be another man's wife". Yet Jesse would have you believe that Jesus said a "divorced" woman commits adultery when she marries. Friends, this theory is completely contrary to the Law of Moses, thus it cannot be what Jesus taught.
Jesus said a "put away" woman commits adultery when she marries. So, perhaps it is vitally important that we understand just what was meant by "put away". Jesse says it is the same as divorce, but we cannot accept that because of the consequences. It makes Jesus a liar (Matt. 5:17, 19). The only path that we can follow that will lead to the truth is that it is possible to "put away" yet not "divorce", and a subsequent marriage without the divorce (which requires the "bill of divorcement") results in adultery.
Surely you can admit that the above makes sense. Now bear with me as we illustrate the absurdity of Jesse's teaching. If a husband and wife get into a fight and the woman screams: "Get out! I hate you! I don't EVER want to see you again!" Are they divorced? If he leaves, as she commanded, has she divorced him? The answer really is obvious, isn't it? Friends, this sort of thing happens with couples all the time. Usually, after they cool down, they reconcile. But according to Jesse, they were "divorced"! Thus, if he is correct, and since divorce ENDS a marriage, the couple would need to get married again, wouldn't they? So, it becomes apparent that a "sent away" spouse who did not receive a "bill of divorcement" is not divorced - not according to Moses and not according to the law of our land.
The assertion that the "bill of divorcement" was not an important part of the divorce is nonsensical. God gave a three part procedure for divorce: 1) "write a bill of divorcement"; 2) "put it into her hand"; and 3) "send her out of the house". Without the bill of divorcement there was no divorce - at least not according to God's definition. Actually, when you look carefully at the wording of Deut. 24:1, 2 and Mark 10:3-5 it becomes evident that the "bill of divorcement" was a command - meaning it was an essential part of the divorce procedure. And we know that God said, "Let not man" put asunder. Man cannot end a marriage his way, but he can do it God's way. Man's way results in "treachery" (Mal. 2:14-16) and adultery (Matt. 19:9). According to Moses the "bill of divorcement" allowed the woman to "go be another man's wife." Without it she could not do so - it would be adultery. Why, because they would still be married.
Brother Jenkins stated that a remarriage is adultery unless the first marriage was sundered because of fornication. Once again, this teaching has Jesus contradicting Moses, thus it cannot be the proper conclusion as to the meaning of the phrase, "except it be for fornication." To understand what Jesus meant we first have to rid ourselves of the notion that Jesus meant "divorce" when he said "put away". Perhaps the best way to explain this is to first give a scenario and then provide a paraphrase of the text:
In the days of Jesus' ministry Mark is married to Martha. He is presented with credible evidence that his wife is actually his blood sister, which means they are guilty of fornication (not adultery), because the marriage is not legitimate according to the Law. He sends her away and marries another. Thus, his "sending away" was not a matter to be condemned but was the right thing to do. His marrying another did not result in adultery.
The context adds support to the above explanation: "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry" (Matt. 19:10). Indeed, it would not be good to marry someone if the marriage would result in fornication. The New Testament gives three examples where the forgoing is the case: 1) Herod who married his brother's wife (though divorced) while his brother lived (Leviticus 18:16; Mk. 6:17, 18); 2) the man who married his father's wife (1Corinthians 5:1); 3) anyone who put away a spouse but did not give the bill of divorcement, but married another (Matthew 5:32).
Paraphrase of Matthew 19:9: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for an unlawful union, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is improperly put away, commits adultery."
It's obvious that "put away" is not necessarily synonymous with "divorce." Certainly, a man can merely dismiss his wife without divorcing her. Nevertheless, the Jewish Law required a "bill of divorcement" as does our law. It makes no sense to contend that a divorce, recognized by God, can take place without the divorce decree and bill, which is the visible evidence that a divorce has taken place.
The Pharisees asked Jesus: "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?" If "put away" meant divorce (which ends the marriage), the above phrasing would be redundant.
|
