Reply to Ron Halbrook’s Article “MARRIAGE: GOD'S GIFT TO MAN AND WOMAN”

by Robert Waters

The discussion that followed this article took place on Biblematters list in January of 2005 (click on "next article" at bottom of page)

Jim Sasser posted an article to BibleMatters that was written by Ron Halbrook. Much of the article was good but I take exception with part of what he wrote. I do not know if Ron is on this list but I certainly would like him to receive a copy of this post so that he might reply to what I have to say, if he so chooses. I only ask that any who might reply simply deal with the issues and refrain from insulting and slanderous remarks.

Brother Sasssar posted Halbrook's article on the 1-29-05. The title of the article was: "MARRIAGE: GOD'S GIFT TO MAN AND WOMAN." It appeared in Truth Magazine Feb 5, 2004. I also plan to send a response to Truth Magazine.

Brother Halbrook, in the two paragraphs below, makes a true and important point:
After God created man, He said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him" (Gen. 2:18). Adam surveyed the animals and found no suitable companion. God then created woman form Adam's rib, and he loved her as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (vs. 23). The Master Craftsman designed woman as His crowning work, suited intellectually, emotionally, and physically for a unique relationship with man. No animal, not even another man, is her equal in this role.

God said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). This union between man and woman is God's gift to both of them for the time and the purpose of life on earth. They equally share the spiritual image of God. The male and female natures perfectly complement for total, balanced companionship by God's design.

RW: The paragraph below would seem to most readers to be completely accurate. Nevertheless, I want to note what I believe to be an almost universal assumption that has resulted in a complete misunderstanding of what Jesus taught on MDR.

Halbrook continues:
Permanent: -- God ordained marriage as a lifelong union. In the time of Malachi, God charged the men of Israel with covering His altar with the tears of their wives whom they had abandoned for other women. God charged that men who do this are treacherous, unscrupulous men who violate vows made before God. God said that "He hates divorce" and that it is an act of violence (Mal. 2:13-16).

Below is the above mentioned text from the KJV:

Do you see what I'm talking about as having been "assumed?" The version from which Halbrook quotes, talking about what God "hates," has "divorce" where the KJV has "putting away". There are several other highly respected versions that do not say divorce. Considering that God divorced Israel for unfaithfulness and refusing to repent (Jer. 3:8) we should at least consider that there is a difference in "putting away" and "divorcing."

This may sound crazy to some of you. You may be thinking that there is no way that the scholars you have read from could have failed to make note of the difference in "put away" and "divorce." I assure you there is much evidence to support this premise, i.e. that "putting away" does not equal "divorce."

The following link should prove helpful in pursuing the evidence you seek:
http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-put-away.htm

The quote below is out of sequence - it being the last statement in Ron's article, but I want to use it to make a point right now.

Jesus Christ died as the perfect sacrifice for sin (Jno. 3;16). We must repent of sinful deeds and relationships by faith in Him and submit to Him by being baptized "for the remission of sins."

RW - Indeed, Jesus lived a perfect life so that he might be a suitable and acceptable sacrifice for our sins. This fact is something that should make one who believes as Ron Halbrook does on MDR (as outlined in his article) to seriously question the foundation for the idea that certain "unmarried" persons commit adultery when they marry. Indeed, one must repent of sinful deeds and if one is truly going to commit adultery by marrying then he must not do it. But, the idea that a divorced person commits adultery when he/she marries another is based on the assumption that Jesus was speaking of "divorce" when He was actually speaking of only "putting away," which does not mean divorce in English but is tantamount to a permanent separation.

I want you to please seriously consider something. Jesus could not possibly have changed the Law from "divorced persons have a right to marry" (Deut. 24:1-3) to "divorced persons commit adultery when they marry." Had he done so he would have transgressed the Law, committed sin and would not have been the sinless Savior. If He truly had done that which many charge He did the Pharisees would have succeeded in entrapping Jesus - causing him to take sides on the controversial issue and, most importantly, they would have charged him with contradicting Moses. There is no indication in any biblical text that the Pharisees succeeded in their efforts. Certainly they did not charge Jesus with contradicting Moses on whether a divorced person had the right to marry.

Halbrook continues:
Jesus was asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" He explained that what God did and said "at the beginning" established God's law of marriage: God created one man and one woman whom He joined in marriage for life (Matt. 19:3-6). Jesus continued, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (v. 9).

RW: Notice that Halbrook continues to use a translation that says "divorce" rather than "put away." If "put away" means divorce, then and only then, would his comments below be seen as accurate:

A man who divorces his wife and takes another woman is not joined by God to the second mate but simply goes to the bed of "adultery." A man who divorces his wife jeopardizes her future because the next man who marries her "commits adultery." The only exception is that a person may divorce a mate guilty of "sexual immorality," and God will join this innocent mate to a new mate in holy marriage.

RW: Brethren, again I must remind you that the above cannot be true unless Jesus contradicted the Law, but since he could not be the Savior if He had so transgressed that law, the above cannot be true. So, what is the explanation for what Jesus said?

Before I answer this I want to provide another quote from Halbrook's article, which I think can actually help me make my point.

"Sexual immorality" is translated from the Greek term porneia: fornication or unlawful sexual intercourse in general (Arndt & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; Moulton & Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament; Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). The term fornication was commonly used of "harlotry," "adultery," "incest," "sodomy," and even "unlawful marriages,"…"

RW: Halbrook has presented evidence that included in the meaning of the word "fornication" (porneia) is "incest" and also "unlawful marriages". It is my sincere belief that the "exception clause" (in the context of the discussion) was applicable to such cases as noted above. Below is a paraphrase of Mat. 19:9/Mark 10:11, with this thought in mind:

Whoever APOLUO's (sends away, dismisses from the house, puts away, repudiates) his wife and marries another commits adultery against "her" (the one he sends away) except in the case where the sending away is done because of "fornication" (porneia).

If APOLUO, in the context of Matt. 19:9, does not refer to divorce then everything He taught makes perfect sense and we can draw a conclusion that, when taught, does not drive people away from Jesus, require divorce, split up homes needlessly, and which should not cause division among God's people. It has been documented that there are about a dozen different views on MDR and virtually all of them are based upon or variants of what is referred to as the "traditional" position, which is based upon the idea that APOLUO means "divorce" and that Jesus' teachings changed the Law (while the Law was still in effect) regarding the right of a divorced person to marry.

Explanation of the paraphrase:
Jesus was dealing with the evil practice of men sending their wives out of the house but not giving them their freedom to marry. This is apparently why Deut. 24:1-3 was written. So what was happening was these men were dealing "treacherously" with their wives by putting them away and not giving them the "bill of divorce" that Moses had commanded (Mark 10:3). Adultery is also used to denote unfaithfulness to a marriage ( http://www.totalhealth.bz/adultery.htm). The men were committing adultery against their spouses in what they were doing. The EXCEPTION to putting away and marrying another was IF the marriage was not legal/scriptural, which would be the case if the marriage was incestuous or illegal. Where such was the case, a "putting way" or permanent separation, would be appropriate and marrying another would not be sinful. The only New Testament examples relating to MDR where action is called for is consistent with the point above. John the Baptist said Herod's marriage to Herodias was "unlawful" (Mat. 14:4). The reason was because of the Mosaic Law that forbad a man to marry his brother's wife while he yet lived (Le 20:21). Certainly John did not, on that occasion, or ever, seek to change the Law of Moses. Remember, it was Herodias that instigated the death of John rather than the Scribes and Pharisees who laid claims to protecting the Law. Another example would be the man who "had his father's wife" (1Cor5:1). This could have been incest, but at best, it was his stepmother, which was not a lawful marriage (see Clark). Here is another example where Jesus' words, as I have explained them, would be applicable: Recently, in a certain state a court authorized homosexual marriages. Then, a higher court overruled that court, making the "marriages" illegal. Those "married" (should they desire to follow God's word) would not need to "divorce" - they would just need to "put away" or separate, i.e. stop the fornication.

Here is a link to an article that exposes Jewish men in their treacherous dealings with women even to this day, and an article by Mike Willis giving his exegesis of Deut. 24:1-3: http://www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Jewish_Women_in_Chains.html

Halbrook continues:

In short, God's gift of marriage was given to a man and a woman never before married, or one whose mate died, or one who divorced a mate for fornication (Matt. 19:3-9; Rom. 7:2,3).

The above harmonizes with Jesus' teachings IF Jesus was talking about divorce rather than the treacherous practice of "putting away," which is something that obviously can be done without divorcing. A "divorce" requires a "bill of divorcement." However, Halbrook's assertion does not harmonize with Paul's teachings. Paul stated that "forbidding to marry" (which applies to us if we tell "unmarried" persons they cannot marry) was "doctrines of devils" (1Tim4:1-3). He said to let everyone have a spouse (1Cor. 7:2). He said to let the "unmarried" marry and that such is better for them than to "burn" (1Cor7:8,9). He said the "loosed" (divorced) do not sin if they marry (1Cor7:27,28).

Now, those who would defend Halbrook's teaching would simply say one is not "loosed" unless he divorced "for fornication." But that is a false assumption based upon the idea that Jesus actually changed the Law of Moses regarding who has a right to marry. Thus, the only explanation that makes any sense at all, allows God to be seen as fair and just (in MDR cases where the "divorced" were innocent of sin), and allows Jesus to be seen as having obeyed and respected the Law of Moses, is the idea that APOLUO does not mean "divorce," which would make clear that Jesus was not dealing with divorce, but only the treacherous practice of "putting away." Some have charged that I have made up the idea that APOLUO does not refer to divorce in Jesus' teachings. The fact is there are many who have learned this truth and I am astonished at how few are willing to debate this issue.

Halbrook continues:

Marriage is not an experiment in self-indulgence and serial polygamy but a life-long union based on unselfish love.

God gave man and woman the gift of marriage -- not bestiality, not fornication outside marriage, not adultery in violation of marriage vows, not homosexual acts, not incest, not pedophilia, not pornography, not divorce on demand. The law of the land cannot overrule the law of God against sodomy, nor against divorce and remarriage for every cause. Our courts have long made havoc of God's gift and law of marriage because the people demand it. It is time for repentance before we destroy our nation and our souls.

RW: Indeed, God's ideal is that a man and woman love each other and remain faithful to each other. Those who sin against their spouse, whether by murder, divorcing, or physical and/or mental abuse, commit sin. But there is not a sin that cannot be forgiven by the blood of Jesus. People do not need to repent of having been divorced by their spouse in cases where they did no wrong. One is no longer obligated to be faithful to someone who has divorced him/her. They are no longer bound to them. Indeed, "a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases" (1 Cor7:15).

Jesus taught people who were Jews. Questions or difficulties regarding their Law were explained by Jesus. He NEVER contradicted the Law. (If you think you know a passage that is an exception please go to Barnes Commentary and read his comments.) The Law first recognized the fact of permanent separations (men sending away their wives). Moses "suffered" them (because of the hardness of their hearts) to put away their wives (Matt. 19:8). Then he actually COMMANDED them (those determined to deal treacherously with their wives, or where the man "found some uncleanness in her") to "give a bill of divorcement," which released the woman so she could "becomes another man's wife" (Deut. 24:1-3). In view of the true teaching of Jesus, and later that of the apostle Paul, there is no reason to condemn the laws of the land that allow divorce. Just as under the Law of Moses, divorce laws have their place. It is our place, as preachers of the gospel, to preach the gospel, which includes the golden rule, and to preach the teachings of the apostle Paul who commanded, "Husbands, love your wives" and, "wives, submit yourselves to your husbands" (Col. 3:19; Eph 5:24, 25).

Conclusion:

I used to hold the position that Ron Halbrook has taught in his article and which many of you who are reading this article have been taught. However, I never really was totally convinced that the doctrine was well supported and I was troubled over the idea that persons who had been faithful in their marriage were being required to live celibate lives if their spouse divorced them. When I became acquainted with the Old Testament law regarding divorce and several New Testament passages that apparently contradict the idea that a divorced person must remain celibate, I determined to learn the truth. With the help of numerous persons through the Internet I did learn the truth. It has now been presented to you and if you want it you can understand it. It is very hard to unlearn something, especially if we have developed the concept that "big preachers" or the "Church of Christ" cannot be wrong. Nevertheless, our souls and the souls of others are depending on our opening our minds to truth with a willingness to change our thinking, when the evidence so demands, and to teach the truth.