|
The earliest published material that I have been able to find teaching that a divorced person ("unmarried") is still bound "in the eyes of God," while admitting that the marriage is dissolved by the legal divorce, as described in Deuteronomy 24:1, 2, is in Searching the Scriptures (STS). The articles were written by J.T. Smith in 1984. In the same journal, back in 1977, he made a statement that should not have gone unchallenged. He said, "We are also informed that the Lord binds us together, and that what God has bound together that no man can put asunder." The text simply does not say "no man can put asunder." Certainly one can follow God's instructions and "put asunder" (Deut 24:1, 2), and adultery is not “the only reason” because for that sin the Law required the death penalty. Since the statement apparently went unchallenged J.T. evidently felt confident that he could later be successful in teaching his theory about divorced persons still being bound.
Let us look at some reasons to question the above noted theory:
1) God gave a procedure for dissolving a marriage so the woman could "go be another man's wife," yet this strange doctrine is saying that a divorce really does not do what it was designed to do. Did God mess up? Did he get confused or was he trying to confuse us? When a couple is divorced how can one remain bound while the other is loosed? Marriage is the only thing that the Scriptures teach binds a couple together. Take away the marriage and the bond no longer exists. This is true except in the minds of those who have accepted the theory espoused by Smith in 1984 and echoed by hundreds since. If the bond still exists after divorce then the "bill of divorcement" that God commanded be given to the wife means nothing (Deut 24:2; Mark 10:3-5). Smith actually published an article by Jesse Jenkins that set forth this very supposition. Here is what 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.
To Smith’s credit I was allowed to write a rebuttal in Gospel Truths.
2) The theory is based upon the assumption that when Jesus stated to the Jews that "divorcing" and marrying another was tantamount to committing. But Jesus could not have meant divorce because that would have been contrary to Moses’ teachings. To get around this argument an illogical argument has been made. Some are arguing that the teaching of Jesus (Matt 19:9) was not contrary to the Law because it applied only to the time when the New Covenant would go into effect. This is obviously false because Jesus was speaking to the people who addressed him, and he told them that such a practice would result in adultery. If a man did what Jesus spoke against was he guilty or not? If the man was not guilty then did Jesus lie to them? Isn't it really obvious that Jesus was not talking about the future?
3) The theory assumes that when Jesus and others used the word apoluo a complete and legal divorce is under consideration, even though many of the best translations never translate apoluo as divorce.
4) The theory forbids those who are “unmarried” but still “bound” to have a marriage. This seems to be doing what Paul condemned in 1 Thessalonians 4:1-3.
5) The theory allows one who has been divorced to marry again, but he must marry only the one who divorced him, the one to whom he is still “bound.” It matters not that his previous spouse has married another and had children. The only hope of a “scriptural marriage” is to break up this “unscriptural marriage” and remarry the original spouse. God, in no uncertain terms, condemned this practice that some are encouraging. He said it is “abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin” (Deut 24:4).
The theory that one can be divorced but still "bound" is obviously laden with problems and is supported only by assumptions and circular reasoning. It evidently was dreamed up as a way of explaining Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 to harmonize with the idea that Jesus taught that the divorced commit adultery when they marry.
Below is a link to an article that fully explaines Rom. 7:1-4:
http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-romans-7-exegesis.htm
J.T. Smith is a known debater and portrays himself as one who values truth and seeks it through study and honorable discussion. Nevertheless, he has not accepted my invitation to discuss this particular issue.
The Law of the Husband - Romans 7:1-6
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx106.htm
Regarding the "marriage and Bond" teaching, Gene Frost offered some very wise advise. Below are his concluding remarks from his article published in Gospel Truths:
Gospel Truths
Volume XV, Number I (January 2004)
Marriage and Bond
Conclusion
I fear that there has been such a desire to rush into print any and every thing that seems to support a position that clarity of thought and properly reasoned arguments have suffered. I therefore appeal to all who are involved in this controversy to slow down, to calmly and fully study the points to be made. A lot of time can be wasted in correcting foolish arguments, which should not have been made in the first place. Study the Bible to learn the truth, what God would have us to believe, rather than to support a preconceived idea.
Now is the time for cool heads and reasoned studies to prevail.
|
