|
For the past few years I have sought diligently to expose error on the Divorce and Remarriage issue. One of the specific errors, which is part of the system that I oppose, is the perversion of what has been called, "The Pauline Privilege", and recently the "doctrine of Abandonment". Those who contend that only those who initiate a divorce "for fornication" may marry another have tried to diligently to "explain away" 1 Corinthians 7:15-16.
Foy Wallace was almost unquestionably one of the greatest scholars the Lord's church has seen, at least in the 20th century. He clearly and forcefully taught against what I refer to as the "traditional view" on MDR, which maintains that persons who have divorced are to be disciplined; yet, in his time he was considered a scholar and faithful gospel preacher. There are many who are still living who knew him personally and who can vouch for his ability and character. Some have been appealing to "scholars" for their evidence to support their doctrine on MDR and challenging me to produce just one scholar who taught what I teach. I believe brother Wallace misunderstood some things regarding MDR, nevertheless, I offer the following for your consideration:
Foy Wallace on 1 Corinthians 7:15, 16
Verses 15-16, in the case of the abandonment of the believer by the unbeliever, whereby the believer is "not under bondage" and is therefore set free. If the bondage here does not refer to the marriage bond, then the believer would still be in the bondage of it. To advocate, as some do, that the passage means the believer is not bound to live or remain with the departing unbeliever would be a truism, for it is set forth as a case of abandonment and the abandoned one obviously could not abide with the one who had departed. It appears evident that when the unbeliever so departs it presupposes a state of adultery which exists in the principle previously discussed, and here the apostle's inspired teaching is again projected beyond the Lord's own strictures and declares the abandoned believer "not under bondage." If that does not mean that the believer in these circumstances is free to marry, then it cannot mean anything, for if the one involved is not altogether free the bondage would still exist." (The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State; p. 45).
"The word adultery in New Testament usage does not necessarily refer to the sinful physical [sexual] act, it is not restricted to the one way of violating the bond. In the four passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke the term adultery is given the sense of ignoring the bond, of which a man is guilty who formally puts away his wife unjustifiably and regards himself unhitched. The passages n Matthew 19: Mark 10 and Luke 16 discuss hypothetically the man who manifests this view by marrying again. His sin of adultery consisted in treating the original contract as null and void when it was not. The phrase "put away" in the verses means to formally divorce, not merely to "send away," or separate, and he thereby assumed the bond to be wholly dissolved." (The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State; p. 42).
"With no course of action legislated, revealed or prescribed, we cannot make one without human legislation. The course of some preachers in demanding separations and the breaking up of family relations, and the refusal to even baptize certain ones whose marriage status does not measure up to his standard of approval, is a presumptuous procedure. It reveals the tendency to displace God as the Judge of us all, and a preacher ascends to the bench. More than teaching the moral principles involved, the preacher has no course of action revealed, and to establish one would result in human legislation, more far reaching in evil consequences than the moral effects of divorcement limited to the persons involved. There are some things that are not subject to the law of restitution, things done in certain circumstances which cannot in later circumstances be undone, which remain as matters between God and the individual, and therefore reserved for the judgment. It is certain, however, that if the Lord Jesus Christ had intended a course of action in these cases, he would not have left it for preachers to prescribe, but would have himself legislated it" (The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State; p. 41).
|
