|
When
a building or a theory is brought into existence it will withstand the tests of
the circumstances and conditions that will ultimately face it only if it has a
solid foundation. Many passages in the Bible teach the importance of a solid
foundation and many passages talk about "cornerstones" as being an
essential part of a building (Isa 28:16; Psa 144:12; Luke 6:48, 49). This
chapter is about the "cornerstones" that are thought to support the
traditional divorce and remarriage point of view.
The
following are four "cornerstones" that are needed to support the
traditional position on divorce and remarriage. If only one of the stones is
proven to be lacking then the traditional position is seen to be lacking in
foundation.
Cornerstone
#1: Only God joins and only God
un-joins marriages.
Cornerstone
#2: Jesus taught new law, which
contradicted the Law of Moses.
Cornerstone
#3: The Greek word apoluo, often translated "put
away" means divorce and Jesus
(Matt 19:9) therefore condemned those who are divorced to a life of celibacy.
Cornerstone
#4: In the exception clause found in
Matthew 19:9, "except it be for fornication," Jesus taught that
unless adultery is the reason for the divorce, adultery is committed by both
parties when he/she marries.
Cornerstone #1: Only God Joins and only
God Un-joins Marriages
Those
who teach the “traditional” position on MDR probably use the above argument
more than anything else. It is indispensable that they establish this point.
Failure to so do would result in no one believing them when they preach that
certain people may not marry and that others must break up their marriages
because, as alleged, they are still married or “bound” to someone else. Thus,
it is clear that without this cornerstone the traditional position will be seen
to be merely an unjust, harsh, destructive and unscriptural opinion of men.
The
defenders of the traditional doctrine argue that "Only God can join a
couple in marriage and only God can un-join." The passage provided is the
one where Jesus said, "What God has joined together let not man put
asunder." The problem here is that they quote this passage to support the
idea that man "cannot put
asunder." They argue that "in the eyes of God” one is still married
unless God sanctioned (or approved of) the divorce. While it is true that the
divorce must be as defined in Deuteronomy 24:1, 2, (the three parts) to be a
divorce, the passage simply does not say man "cannot put asunder";
therefore no scriptural foundation supports their comment. It is found to be
nothing more than a false assertion. For the traditional position to have a
foundation it is essential that this idea (i.e., cornerstone) that man cannot
divorce without God's approval, be proven true. Seeing that scriptural support
for this particular "cornerstone" is lacking, the whole traditional
MDR doctrine is found to be error.
Cornerstone #2: Jesus Taught New Law,
Which Contradicted the Law of Moses
Traditional
teachers on MDR maintain that the teachings of Christ on MDR are no different
from what God’s word has taught "from the beginning". They quote
Jesus who said, regarding the Jews practice of divorcing and remarrying,
"From the beginning it was not so." It is interesting to note that
they emphatically declare that Jesus taught that any divorced person must
remain celibate. However, this interpretation of what Jesus said is contrary to
the clear teachings of Moses, and this presents an enormous problem.
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it
come to pass that she find no favor 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]. (Deut 24:1, 2)
In
view of what the above passage says, in order for the traditional position to
have a foundation its advocates must
be able to show that Jesus taught new
law-that He in fact flatly contradicted Moses. This puts them in a real
predicament. You see, the Jews looked upon Jesus as a man. They did not like
him and sought to charge him with crimes worthy of death. Had Jesus taught
anything contrary to Moses they would have caught it and have used it against
him. Jesus was God, but the Jews did not accept that fact and had he sinned in
contradicting the Law of Moses they would certainly have dealt with him as a
man who taught heresy.
The
traditional position desperately needs Jesus to have contradicted Moses, but He
could not have done so and be the Savior. Proponents of this doctrine have
assumed that Jesus' teachings forbad a divorced person from marrying another,
yet the Law he taught under allowed a divorced person to marry another. Since
Jesus could not have contradicted Moses and be the sinless Savior, this
cornerstone, which is so desperately needed by those who would defend the
traditional position, is lacking.
Cornerstone # 3: The Greek word Apoluo, Often Translated "Put
Away," Means Divorce and Jesus (Matt 19:9) Therefore Condemned Those Who
Are Divorced to a Life of Celibacy
That
several versions, especially the new ones, translate apoluo as divorce is admitted. However, it is significant that
several versions known for their accuracy, including the American Standard Version, Young’s Literal Translation, Darby and
others, do not translate apoluo as
divorce—not once.
Lexicographers
often include divorce in their definition of apoluo. They may say, “used of divorce in Matthew 1:19,” where Joseph
had a mind to apoluo Mary privately.
Many conclude that Joseph and Mary were in fact married because the text, as
often translated into English, indicates that they were husband and wife.
However, the word from which “husband” is translated can also mean “man.” Thus,
Joseph was her “man,” which would certainly be true in the situation of being
betrothed; or, to use our word, “engaged.” The same was true with the word for
“wife.” Nevertheless, many have concluded that Joseph and Mary were married at
the time this passage was written and therefore apoluo, as used in the text, means “divorce.” But this is obviously
a false conclusion because the couple was merely espoused at the time and
actually married later.
In
the situation with reference to marriage, apoluo
is usually translated into English by respected scholars as "put
away," which is a phrase that does not constitute a complete divorce.
Does
merely putting away, letting go, or sending away constitute "a legal
dissolution of the marriage?"
In
addition to Deuteronomy 24:1-3, Jeremiah 3:8 indicate that "put away"
is not a divorce but only part of the process:
And I saw, when
for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put
her away (shalah H791), and given her a bill of divorce (Kerythuwth h3738): yet
her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
If
one asserts that "put away" and "divorce" are used
interchangeably and mean the same then they have God saying, "I divorced
her and gave her a divorce." The Collins English Dictionary and Wordnet
Dictionary do not include the word divorce in the definition of “put
away.” Without solid evidence that apoluo
means divorce, as used in the text, the common teaching that divorced persons
commit adultery if they marry is apparently based upon a false assumption that
a legal/scriptural divorce was under consideration when Jesus and the Pharisees
conversed. Evidently Jesus was dealing with a common practice of the Jews-the
treacherous act of “putting away” and not releasing or freeing the wife by
giving the bill of divorcement, as was commanded by Moses (Deut 24:1-4; Mark
10:3). Thus, a needed cornerstone for the “traditional” MDR position is
lacking.
Cornerstone # 4: In the Exception Clause
Found in Matthew 19:9, "Except It Be for Fornication," Jesus Taught
that Unless Adultery is the Reason for the Divorce, Adultery is Committed by
Either Party He/She Marries
An
alarming number of brethren contend that a divorce does not take place "in
the eyes of God" unless the reason for the divorce is adultery on the part
of the one being divorced. The result of this mindset is that people who have
been married before, and who want to become a Christian, are given a litmus
test: "Did your spouse commit adultery?”; or "Did you divorce your
spouse because of adultery?" (and some insist that the court documents so
reflect). If they answer “yes” they are invited to be baptized and are accepted
into fellowship in the church. If they answer "no" they are told that
repentance is a prerequisite to baptism and repentance requires that they
divorce and avow to never marry.
Actually,
the word porneia, in the exception clause, does not refer specifically
to adultery (moichao) as is commonly thought. It does include “incest”
or unions that are not legal because of close kin (1 Cor 5:1; John 14:4; Lev
20:21; Gen 28:1); or, as was the case with the Israelites, unions with foreign
women. If a Jew married someone he was forbidden to marry, he could apoluo her (put away) and marry another
and he would not be guilty of adultery against her (Mark 10:11). It would in
fact be right to “put away” or separate and thus stop the fornication in such
cases.
The
traditional explanation of Jesus' phrase "except it be for
fornication," regarding which MDR traditional defenders say refers to
unfaithfulness (adultery) on the part of the spouse, is yet another needed
cornerstone to support the practice of breaking up legal marriages and imposing
celibacy.
Conclusion
We
have looked at four points that are needed as cornerstones for the traditional
doctrine that requires celibacy for those who have been divorced. If only one
of these cornerstones is lacking the foundation cannot be sound and the
doctrine is seen to be error. We have shown that not just one but all the needed cornerstones are lacking.
Thus, the traditional position on divorce and remarriage lacks foundation. It
is based entirely upon false assumptions and human tradition.
| 
