|
"But go ye and learn what this meaneth, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.’" (Matthew 9:13)
"But if ye had known what this meaneth, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.’" (Matthew 12:7)
Some lessons seem to be harder for us to learn than others. I believe the lesson of God’s desire for mercy above sacrifice is one of them. I do not believe for one moment that the Savior would quote the above passage on more than one occasion simply by accident. I believe He did so with the intent of driving this point home: God desires mercy above sacrifice. He always has! So why is it that we find it so difficult to not only emulate, but comprehend the meaning of mercy, and place yokes upon our brothers and sisters that we could not bear?
As the reader will know by now, I have stated unequivocally my belief in the sanctity and permanence of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and it should be a lifelong commitment. I do believe, though, that an enlightened look at the scriptures will show that God does allow for divorce when necessary. Let’s start by examining again what Paul said to the Corinthians.
"Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:15-16) Here Paul instructs that the brother or sister who has an unbelieving spouse that departs is no longer under bondage to that spouse. The word translated bondage comes from the Greek word douloo, meaning to enslave; bring into bondage; become or make a servant. It comes from doulos, meaning a slave; bondman; servant. Doulos is derived from deo, meaning to bind, literally or figuratively; be in bonds; knit; tie; wind. It would seem appropriate to conclude, then, based upon scripture, that if an unbelieving spouse leaves, then the believing spouse would be able to end the marriage: "…but God hath called us in peace."
Paul also seems to be indicating the utter futility of a believing spouse chasing after one who has no interest in becoming a Christian: "For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" It is better to just let them go, rather than try to convert those who do not wish to be converted. This has all the earmarks of a contentious and hopeless endeavor, and is contrary to the teaching, "…but God hath called us in peace."
I wish to share with you another cyber exchange I had with a lady on an Internet forum wherein I am a moderator. The subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage had come up, and this led to the following exchange between myself and a lady I will call Donna regarding divorce. Other than her name and the email addresses, nothing has been changed.
David Ferguson to Donna:
I hope you and Robert do not mind me offering my take on this, but it is as follows:
Sister Donna said: "How do you reconcile what Paul taught about if a spouse leaves, they should either come back together or stay apart and unmarried? Seems that is similar to "putting away" without a divorce?"
David responds: "But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) The word translated depart is from the Greek word choreo, meaning to give space. Paul is speaking here of a separation, and not a divorce. Paul is reiterating what Jesus said regarding this issue, "…yea not I, but the Lord," that those who are not divorced, but just separated, should not marry another. She should remain unmarried in terms of attaching herself to another man while still married to her first husband, and she should try and be reconciled, if at all possible. Remember, polygamy was still being practiced during the first century, so it makes sense that Paul would say to remain unmarried, meaning refraining from marrying another, when in fact she was still legally married to the first husband, as she has only become separated.
The word translated leave in verse 11 comes from the Greek word aphiemi, meaning to leave, put away, or let go. Its root comes from apo, denoting separation or departure. Paul is saying here that the man should not put away or leave his wife, which is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Christ discussed earlier from Matthew 19 and Mark 10.
I hope this helps.
In Christ,
David R. Ferguson
In another post I wrote:
David Ferguson to Donna and the list:
Sister Donna said: "Much thanks for bringing this information to the discussion...... So the next logical question is...what indicates in this passage ANY amount of time to remain unmarried except the condition that for as long as they are apart, they remain unmarried to others?"
David responds: Sister Donna, I believe it is determined by how long they remain SEPARATED, but not DIVORCED. As long as they are just separated, then they should not marry or have sexual relations with anybody else. More on this later.
Sister Donna said: "I do not believe it is speaking about divorced couples. I do believe, as you do, it is about separated couples who are married to each other...being admonished not to marry others (which is bigamy in this country.)"
David responds: Sister Donna, from my previous post I believe you realize that I, too, believe Paul was speaking to the separated, and not to the divorced in this passage.
Sister Donna said: "Isn't there just as much reason to think that if there is no possible reconciliation, they are to remain separated for life...just as much as there is for the separation being for a period of time?"
David responds: Sister Donna, I believe the scriptures teach that marriage is intended to be for life between one man and one woman. Although getting divorced does not appear to be mentioned specifically in the New Testament, I believe one can deduce logically and scripturally that one MAY get divorced if it becomes necessary. I do not claim to have every answer regarding mariage, divorce and remarriage, but I am doing my best to learn from God's word on this topic.
As all who have been following this study should realize by now, God created the means for obtaining a divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1: "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." We also know that God said a woman was entirely free to remarry once she was divorced, and to do so without fear of being called a whore, a harlot, a loose woman, an adulteress, etc.: "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy 24:2) With this being said, doesn't it seem logical that the same would still hold true for us under the New Covenant?
Now let's see if there are any teachings that may lead one to believe individuals may sometimes of necessity get divorced. "But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2) Paul began this chapter by teaching that it is best for a man not to pursue becoming attached to a woman due to the present distress, but said in order to avoid fornication it is better for individuals to marry than to burn with great desire and passion: "But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Corinthians 7:9)
"Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:15-16) Here Paul instructs that the brother or sister who has an unbelieving spouse that departs is no longer under bondage to that spouse. The word translated bondage comes from the Greek word douloo, meaning to enslave; bring into bondage; become or make a servant. It comes from doulos, meaning a slave; bondman; servant. Doulos is derived from deo, meaning to bind, literally or figuratively; be in bonds; knit; tie; wind. It would seem appropriate to conclude, then, based upon scripture, that if an unbelieving spouse leaves, then the believing spouse would be able to end the marriage: "…but God hath called us in peace."
Remember what God said in the Garden of Eden, even before sin had entered the world? "And Jehovah God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone....'" (Genesis 2:18a) Let me ask you, if a spouse separates, and reconciliation is not possible, why is it suddenly now good that the man (or the woman) should remain alone? And using the Old Law as a reference, IT DOES NOT SAY SEXUAL IMPROPRIETY HAD TO BE COMMITTED IN ORDER TO GET A DIVORCE. It said, "...if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her...." (Deuteronomy 24:1b) If this is limited to only illicit sexual activity there was already a punishment on the books for that, and it was death. If one was dead, there would be no need for the surviving spouse to obtain a divorce. The logical conclusion seems to be that there could be other reasons acceptable for one to obtain a divorce.
And what of the case where the man or woman was physically and/or mentally abusive to the other spouse? Can this person be considered a faithful member when he or she is violating God's commands for the husband and wife to love and honor each other? Isn't abuse a form of oath-breaking? Does not God demand mercy in such cases? "At that season Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the grainfields; and His disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat. But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto Him, 'Behold, Thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath.' But He said unto them, 'Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, that on the Sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. But if ye had known what this meaneth, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' ye would not have condemned the guiltless.'" (Matthew 12:1-7)
Paul also seems to be indicating the utter futility of a believing spouse chasing after one who has no interest in becoming a Christian when he wrote the following: "For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:16) It is better to just let them go, rather than try to convert those who do not wish to be converted. This has all the earmarks of a contentious and hopeless endeavor, and is contrary to the teaching, "…but God hath called us in peace."
Paul also wrote the following: "Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you." (1 Corinthians 7:27-28) The word translated bound is the Greek word deo, meaning to bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, or wind. The word translated wife is from the Greek word gune, meaning wife, or woman. It is the same word for wife used by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. The first word translated loosed in verse 27 comes from the Greek word luo, meaning to loosen; break up; destroy; dissolve; loose; melt; put off. The second word translated loosed in verse 27 is from the Greek word lusis, meaning a loosening; divorce; to be loosed. It is derived from luo. The word translated marry in verse 28 is from the Greek word gameo, meaning to marry a wife. This is the same word translated marry in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 when spoken by the Lord. Paraphrased, Paul was saying, "Are you married to a wife? Seek not to be divorced. Are you divorced from a wife? Seek not a wife. But should you marry, you haven’t sinned." And since Paul said widows could marry those "…in the Lord," then it seems only logical to conclude that since the divorced can remarry, they, too, should marry "…in the Lord." Too, logic would only dictate that if Paul said the divorced could marry and not sin, then he was acknowledging that in some cases divorce was acceptable.
Finally, it appears we have come full circle. What if one's spouse has departed, with no chance for reconciliation, and attraction begins with another? "But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2) "But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Corinthians 7:9) In order to satisfy these passages, one would HAVE to get divorced in order to get married to keep from committing fornication.
I know this is somewhat long, but I hope it was helpful anyway.
In Christ,
David R. Ferguson
I respond to Donna again:
David Ferguson to Donna:
Sister Donna said: "As you know, silence is not consent."
David responds: I totally agree with this statement.
Sister Donna said: "If the NT is silent regarding divorce, the silence cannot be consent."
David responds: Donna, I believe I said I don't believe it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned, not that it is silent on the matter. (If I said that it was silent, I stand corrected! I don't have the post in front of me, so I am operating from memory here.) I still respectfully disagree, however, that it is silent, but that it is inferred by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.
Sister Donna said: "I am not sure the NT teaches by logic and deduction."
David responds: Sister Donna, I believe it does. For example, in Acts 8 we have the account of Philip the Evangelist meeting with the Ethiopian eunuch. We are told, "And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus." (Acts 8:35) So we have it specifically mentioned that Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch. However, this is what Luke recorded in the very next verse: "And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, 'Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?'" (Acts 8:36) We saw nothing mentioned by Luke regarding any discussion of the gospel plan of salvation, and yet one can logically deduce that if one preaches Jesus, one must also include the gospel plan of salvation, which includes baptism in water. Otherwise, why would the eunuch have asked Philip about being baptized? Because Philip talked about it when he preached Jesus. This is a natural, logical deduction we make.
Another logical deduction is that one will be condemned if one is not baptized. Jesus said in Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." If one is saved by believing and being baptized, then one will be condemned if one refuses baptism, even though Jesus did not specifically say so, when He said "...he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." That, too, is a logical deduction.
Sister Donna said: "One might ask if not being under bondage is simply as the word means, the wife/husband has no DUTY as a husband/wife in this situation. It
does not mention divorce or remarriage."
David responds: Sister Donna, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me you have added a word here to fit your conclusion: DUTY. The word translated bondage comes from the Greek word douloo, meaning to enslave; bring into bondage; become or make a servant. It comes from doulos, meaning a slave; bondman; servant. Doulos is derived from deo, meaning to bind, literally or figuratively; be in bonds; knit; tie; wind. There is no mention of DUTY. But in the context of what is being discussed here, marital relations and marital relationships, divorce is very much in context with the
passage. Paul DOES, however, mention divorce and remarriage in verses 27 and 28.
Sister Donna said: "Not to mention, it could mean the couple has no binding agreement to attempt to reconcile. It does not say anything about ending the marriage."
David responds: Donna, I am not really following you here with your "the couple has no binding agreement to attempt to reconcile" statement. It seems to me the easiest way to interpret this passage is the marriage is ended. Isn't that one of the rules in interpreting scripture, finding the easiest way to understand it, unless that can not be done?
Sister Donna said: "Seems to me, the passage which instructs them to either reconcile or remain apart would apply in this situation."
David responds: I believe Paul was discussing that earlier, but is now leading our minds into discussing situations involving those who are divorced.
Sister Donna said: "This passage you speak of in Deuteronomy 24:1 indicates the marriage occurs and the husband discovers his spouse is not a chaste virgin, or other indication of sexual impurity. There could not be a witness for this, so no death penalty is valid."
David responds: Sister Donna, I respectfully disagree that Deuteronomy 24:1 is limited ONLY to those who just got married, and then on the honeymoon night he discovered that she was not a virgin. In fact, according to what I have read regarding mid-eastern wedding practices, the bride was oftentimes examined by women from the groom's
family, prior to the wedding ceremony taking place, in order to prove she was chaste.
Sister Donna said: "Now we have moved to adultery to oath breaking. Still, there is no teaching regarding divorce in the New Testament. Separation, yes, divorce, no."
David responds: Sister Donna, a marriage is more than just a couple being allowed to engage in sexual intercourse. This oath breaking is very much applicable to the topic at hand. Marriage is also a covenant: "Yet ye say, 'Wherefore? Because Jehovah hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt
treacherously, though she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.'" (Malachi 2:14) And God does not like it when we break a covenant, regardless of the reasons: "Have respect unto the covenant; for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of violence." (Psalm 74:20) "They speak vain words, swearing falsely in making covenants: therefore judgment springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field." (Hosea 10:4)
Sister Donna said: "I do not agree with how you read the emphasis or context of this passage. Chapter 7 begins with Paul saying he would that all men were like him, unmarried. So the overall context of this passage is the acceptability of marriage. The verses you address should reflect this context and be taken in the context of, "if you do marry, you do not sin, just because I have said it would be good for you to be unmarried."
David responds: I am not sure I am following you here, because I have stated I believe marriage should be for life between a man and a woman. However, I realize we live in a
world where sometimes divorce happens, all too often. I believe I have made a scriptural case whereby divorce can be an option, albeit a last resort, based upon the covenantal nature of the union itself.
Paul said he wished that all men were like him, unmarried, because of the present distress, the great persecution facing the church.
Sister Donna said: "Another point, Paul says in a couple of areas it is merely his opinion. He does point out when it is a command of God. That should be taken in the manner he offers it. None of the passage deals with divorce and remarriage. It does deal with death and remarriage."
David responds: But if he says, "Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned…. (1 Corinthians 7:27b-28a) ...." This specifically deals with marriage and divorce. This seems to me to be an acknowledgement of the unfortunate occurrence of divorce, even among God's people. And if it is an acknowledgement, then there must be some allowance for it. At least, that's how I see it from the scriptures.
Thank you for your insights and comments, sister Donna. I am glad you are a part of our forum.
In Christ,
David R. Ferguson
Sister Donna and I continue our discussion:
David Ferguson to Donna:
Sister Donna said: "My question would be...did God really join anyone in marriage and if so, how can man put it aside? Does the court have power greater than God to displace what He put into place?"
David responds: Donna, it seems to me that God created the means for obtaining a divorce when He had Moses write, "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy 24:1-2)
It would seem to me that as long as one followed the laws of the land and obtained a divorce legally, then God in essence is being followed. For as has been discussed here on this forum previously, Jesus was speaking of the practice of putting away, not divorce. Man can not put asunder what God has put together. They must do so according to His law. And all governmental authority is derived from God.
In Him,
David R. Ferguson
It was at this point that our discussion on this topic ceased. Although I do not agree with sister Donna’s beliefs that there is no teaching on divorce in the New Testament, I still, nonetheless, consider her a sister in Christ.
|
