|
When I began seriously studying the subject of divorce and
remarriage (about 12 years ago) I gradually moved away from the “traditional”
position that, “divorce is not sinful, but remarriage is.” Olan Hicks and
others had been putting forward some strong arguments defending the teaching
that “divorce is wrong, marriage is right.” However, after much study and
debate, I admit that I was wrong on that point, and it is a very significant
matter.
There are a couple of passages that must be harmonized: 1)
“God hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16 Living Bible) and 2) Jeremiah 3:8, where we
see that God divorced Israel. "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby
backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a
bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and
played the harlot also."
Some, in an effort to harmonize these passages, have offered
quite pitiful explanations. The most common argument is that, the marriage
was not literal and therefore does not apply. Nevertheless, it was called
a marriage and no logical or reasonable argument against that fact has been
offered. Thus, the case in point stands as an example (1Cor 10:11).
Others have argued that it was okay for God to divorce but
not okay for us to do it. Thus, they have God setting an example for us but
then later, supposedly, telling us that we must not follow that example.
(In a similar manner some seek to justify their contention that Jesus taught
contrary to the Law, under which he lived, in teaching “new doctrine” on
divorce and remarriage.) Is God inconsistent? Absolutely not! On occasions,
God has been angry with men (Deut. 29:23). This demonstrates that anger is
not sinful. Paul teaches us to, “Be angry but do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26).
This is easy to understand, and if you can understand this you can understand
that divorce, under certain circumstances, is not sinful for the same reasons.
But what about the passage that says God hates divorce? First,
let us take a look at the passage from some of the most trusted versions:
King James: Malachi 2:16
For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one
covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take
heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
American Standard Malachi 2:16
For I hate putting away, saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, and him that covereth
his garment with violence, saith Jehovah of hosts: therefore take heed to
your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Young's Bible Malachi 2:16
For [I] hate sending away, said Jehovah, God of Israel, And He [who] hath
covered violence with his clothing, said Jehovah of Hosts, And ye have been
watchful over your spirit, And ye do not deal treacherously.
Darby's Bible Malachi 2:16
(for I hate putting away, saith Jehovah the God of Israel;) and he covereth
with violence his garment, saith Jehovah of hosts: take heed then to your
spirit, that ye deal not unfaithfully.
Webster's Bible Malachi 2:16
For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith, that he hateth putting away: for
[one] covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore
take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
After observing that there is an obvious difference in opinion
as to how the word shalach should
be translated, one has to wonder if our ability to understand the whole divorce
and remarriage issue doesn’t hinge on the difference between “put away” and
“divorce.”
Vines says shalach means: "to send, stretch forth,
get rid of."
Consider also Strong’s
definition of shalach:
[Heb. 7971] shalach (shaw-lakh')
“a primitive root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of applications):--X
any wise, appoint, bring (on the way), cast (away, out), conduct, X earnestly,
forsake, give (up), grow long, lay, leave, let depart (down, go, loose),
push away, put (away, forth, in, out), reach forth, send (away, forth, out),
set, shoot (forth, out), sow, spread, stretch forth (out).”
It is apparent that Mr. Strong understood the language to
refer to something less than divorce,
which according to God requires a legal document (Deut. 24:1). Not only is
there no mention of divorce in Mal 2:16, it is apparent that the sinful thing
alluded to in the text was “treachery,” which is defined as “betrayal.” Such
treachery was, and is today, being practiced by Jewish men who put away their
wives but not freeing them with a “writ of divorce” according to the command
of Moses. Of what did Jesus say these men were guilty when they “put away”
their wives and married another (Matt. 19:9)? He said they were guilty of
adultery (Moichao), not fornication (porneia) used in the "exception clause".
Although some have concluded from the Pharisees’ comment that divorce was
merely something Moses suffered (permitted), Jesus, in the next verse, told
them that it was something that Moses actually “commanded” them to do under
the circumstances and in the context of the discussion (Mark 10:3,5). Certainly
Moses was not commanding a man to divorce his faithful wife, for such could
not be done without committing “treachery,” which is what God hates. He simply
commanded those who were determined to get rid of a wife to give them legal
papers whereby they could show that they were free from the marriage, and
thus be able to marry another without being charged with adultery. In doing
so, Moses clearly defined “divorce” as having three clear and distinct parts,
not just one – the sending away, the bill of divorcement and putting it into
her hand (Deut. 24:1-3).
Incidentally, no exception was mentioned in Mark’s account.
Thus, evidently the “exception clause” was not applicable to those in the
audience because they were indeed unscripturally putting away their wives
to whom they were scripturally/legally married. Jesus did, however, for the
record give an “exception,” as found in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. If “porneia”
was being committed, as would be the case if the marriage was not scriptural
or legal, one could and should simply “put away”, or “send away” the illicit
sexual partner. No papers for divorce would be needed because there was no
legal marriage to dissolve. They simply would need to separate, as was the
case in the command found in Ezra 10:11: “Now therefore make confession unto
the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of
the land, and from the strange wives.”
The word translated “separate” is: [Heb. 914] badal(baw-dal')
a primitive root; to divide (in variation senses literally or figuratively,
separate, distinguish, differ, select, etc.):-- (make, put) difference, divide
(asunder), (make) separate (self, -ation), sever (out), X utterly. (Strong's)
There was no command to divorce those women (as we define
the word today), why? They were not legal marriages. The relationships were
not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended by permanent separation.
(See 1 Cor. 5; Mt. 14:3, 4; Lev. 20:21 and Gen 28:6).
I recently heard on a radio talk show a man talking about
the overturn of homosexual marriages that were illegally allowed in a certain
state. He stated that there would be no need for a divorce because there
was no legal marriage. He was exactly right and this is the type of thing
involved in the “exception clause” that many misunderstand, misapply and
use to justify the practice of “forbidding to marry”, which God put into
the catalog of “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
Conclusion:
God divorced Israel after it became apparent that there was
not going to be repentance and a renewed relationship. Under the same circumstances
divorce is the right thing to do, whether it is initiated by the guilty one
that “put away” or the one that had diligently tried to save the relationship.
(Men of our day errantly and foolishly make a big issue regarding who initiates
the divorce, which they call the "putting away.") After we understand that
there is a difference in one being put away and one being divorced we can
easily see that the traditional teaching that one who has been divorced is
forbidden to marry (or will commit adultery if he does), is without scriptural
support.
|
