|
This article was prompted by a post to a group that was designed to ridicule those who seek to defeat the traditional divorce and remarriage teaching by showing that the gospels are Old Testament, and do not apply to us.
There are several reasons that one might seek to teach that the gospels are Old Testament. I do not hold that position. However, I do strongly believe that Jesus did not contradict Moses on divorce and remarriage or any other doctrine. It would have been transgression or sin for him to have done so. Below are some possible reasons:
One, Jesus stated that he did not come to destroy the Law and that nothing would be changed till all be fulfilled (Mt. 5:17, 18). I suppose they prefer not to hold to a belief that makes a liar out of Jesus and therefore seek a more logical explanation.
Two, God is a just God and has never made a law that requires punishing someone for what someone else has done. For instance, one divorced against his will, and without good cause, being required to live a life of celibacy. Thus, the reason one might seek another explanation for Jesus’ teaching is that they feel like it would be wrong to continue teaching something that is contrary to God’s nature, and which makes Him out to be something that He denies, and condemns in us. Note the following passages and comments:
[KJV] Pr 17:15 - He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
[MHCC] Pro 17:15 - It is an offence to God to acquit the guilty, or to condemn those who are not guilty.
[GIL] - He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just,.... That absolves and clears the guilty, and pronounces him righteous in open court, where he stands arraigned, accused, and the fact proved; and that adjudges an innocent man to condemnation; or passes the sentence of it upon him, when it is a clear case he is not guilty;
[KJV] Pr 17:26 - Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity.
[MSG] It's wrong to penalize good behavior, or make good citizens pay for the crimes of others.
[CEV] It isn't fair to punish the innocent and those who do right.
[GNB] It is not right to make an innocent person pay a fine; justice is perverted when good people are punished.
[Gil] - Pro 17:26 - Also to punish the just is not good,.... It is evil, and an abomination to the Lord, Pro_17:15. Evildoers indeed should be punished; but to punish the righteous also, as well as them, is far from being commendable;
Three, God’s TRUE law has no loop-holes. This means that any doctrine that can be circumvented or “got around” is NOT God’s law. The traditional teaching on MDR allows for murderers to be completely forgiven, and rightly so. Thus, one could murder his spouse and marry another without committing adultery. The bottom line is God’s law (?) that supposedly requires the divorced to live celibate, may be circumvented. This can mean only one thing: It is NOT God's law.
Thinking people conclude from these things that Jesus must have taught something different than what is attributed to him by people who think Jesus said a divorced person commits adultery if he/she marries. Some think the answer is the idea that the gospels are Old Testament and therefore do not apply to us, but this is not the answer. The answer is to understand who Jesus was talking to and what were the circumstances? If you want to be right (rather than to just maintain tradition) you must reject the idea that Jesus changed the Law by telling the Jews that, although they were allowed to remarry after a divorce, those who have been divorced and married another are now adulterers. The most logical conclusion I have seen (and it has stood the test of debate with capable opponents) is that Jesus dealt with the unique problem of the Jews – men putting away and not giving the bill of divorce that was commanded by Moses (Deut. 24:1-4; Mark 10:3). With this as a starting place, everything else falls into place perfectly. There must be some reason that so many defenders of tradition, who normally will debate at the drop of a hat, will not debate this idea and will not allow it to be discussed on their group or in their journals. Truth is hard to defeat. I'm pretty sure this is the reason for refusing open discussion and formal debate -- along with the need to defend tradition at all costs.
|
