|
While surfing on the Web, I found an article that Don
Martin wrote. In the article, Don actually substantiates much of what I
have been teaching on divorce and remarriage, although we obviously do
not agree. After all his verbal acrobatics and finagling, the final
sine qua non is that APOLUO is properly translated DIVORCE. You may
read his article on the meaning and usage of APOLUO at the following
URL:
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR220.htm
The questions Don answers in the appendix look identical
to questions I asked him when I was on Mars-list. I believe the whole
article he wrote was a response to my questions.
In the above-mentioned article, Don wrote:
In the case of divorcement, a mate can put away, either
with scriptural cause, for fornication, or without scriptural cause (to
do so without the cause of fornication is sinful, Matt. 5: 32, I Cor.
7: 1-12).
Don has admitted (in his article on the web) that APOLUO
can have a legal or non-legal connotation. Therefore, he has (for all
practical purposes) admitted that one can "put away" his spouse in the
sense of repudiation, or
sending away, as defined by Thayer, Strong and others, which is a
concept that I believe is crucial to understanding the “exception
clause”.
I have a scenario and a question that will serve to illustrate the true teaching regarding the “exception clause” that has so often been used to unjustly and unscripturally (1Cor. 7:8,9) impose celibacy on the "unmarried", which includes the divorced:
Bill marries Sue (who has never been married). Bill
finds out that Sue is actually his blood sister. Therefore, the
marriage is not legal. Since there is no legal marriage there is no
need for a divorce. Bill "puts away" Sue, by saying we must end this
relationship, which is sinful (fornication), and they divide the goods
and separate.
Questions:
1. Is Sue a "put away" woman?
Answer: Obviously, if you want to be technical, because she has been "put away". But she is not divorced, as we understand the term, because she was never legally married.
2. Does Sue, a "put away" woman, now have a scriptural right to marry?
Answer: Yes. She is not married and never has been.
3. How is the situation of Bill and Sue affected by the “exception clause” of Matt. 19:9, i.e. does it apply to them?
Answer: First, it is admitted by virtually all that adultery is not committed if the “putting away” is for fornication. Indeed the exception clause applies to Bill and Sue. Bill did not commit adultery against Sue by putting her away and marrying another because that is what Jesus said. He put her away due to fornication being committed because the marriage was not legal/scriptural.
4. Since “put away” can obviously mean what it says, without the divorce connotation, why must we FORCE it to mean DIVORCE, which results in consequences that we should not be willing to accept, namely that Jesus lied and broke the Law by teaching contrary to it (Matt. 5:18)?
YOUR ANSWER PLEASE:
|
