|
In their effort to support and defend their teaching that a divorced person may not marry, some make the argument that Jesus was presenting New Testament doctrine, i.e., certain things He said are asserted not to have been applicable to those to whom He spoke but are applicable to Christians under the New Testament. Yet it is obvious that Jesus' teaching in passages like Matthew 19:9 was pertinent to the Jews who initiated the conversation by asking questions.
This idea that Jesus switched back and forth--teaching Old Testament doctrine in one passage and New Testament doctrine in the next--is without foundation. It defies logic. How would Jesus' original audience have known whether He was teaching Old Testament or New Testament principles? In other words, how could they have known whether Jesus' words were applicable to them rather than intended only to apply to someone not present but living in the next dispensation?
This is not a hard question to answer. A casual look at the context reveals whom Jesus was addressing. Note verse 7: "They say unto him..." This establishes to whom the Pharisees spoke. Next: (verse 8) "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Finally, Jesus said: "And I say unto you..." Now how can one possibly get from Jesus' teaching, in these passages, that He was establishing new law that was not germane to the very people He was addressing, and why would anyone even think of making such an argument?
While Jesus had authority to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6) He did not have "all authority" until after His death (Matt. 28:18). He wasn't crowned until after His ascension (Acts 2:32-36). Thus, the idea that Jesus could and did contradict established Law regarding divorced women's being allowed to marry is illogical. Even if He could have done it why would He when speaking to people living under the Jewish Law? Are we supposed to believe that He just ignored the confusion that would certainly abound? There is no evidence of confusion; thus the whole idea is baseless. Would it not make more sense to wait until the New Testament went into effect and inspire an apostle to answer questions Christians asked regarding divorce and marriage? Of course it would, and that is exactly what Jesus did (1 Cor. 7:1, 2; 7, 8; 27, 28).
Why Such a Silly Argument in the First Place?
The argument was apparently made by well-meaning teachers who could not fathom the idea or possibility that their teaching on MDR was error. Thus, they set out to explain how Jesus could say things (teach) contrary to the Law yet His teaching, which supported their MDR theory, not be contrary to the Law--knowing that it would be sin to contradict the Law and that Jesus could not have so sinned. Thus, the solid argument that JESUS COULD NOT HAVE SAID A DIVORCED PERSON COMMITS ADULTERY IF HE/SHE MARRIES BECAUSE SUCH WOULD HAVE CONTRADICTED MOSES AND GOD'S LAW (Deut. 24:1, 2; Jer. 3:8) must be seriously considered. And, until there is some reasonable argument set forth that explains how Jesus could switch back and forth, we must reject the idea that He said a divorced person sins by marrying.
The inquiring mind (honorable truth seeker) needs to know what Jesus actually said. That part is easy. The key Greek word is APOLUO—usually translated "put away" or "sent," which is only PART of the divorce process defined by God. The logical conclusion then must be that Jesus was condemning the Jewish men's sending away their wives but not divorcing according to the Law so the divorced woman "may go be another man's wife." Of course, Jesus also condemned the idea that it was okay to divorce (legally) a faithful wife.
The misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the so-called "exception clause" has resulted in great confusion. Fortunately, the truth is really simple. The "exception clause" is nothing more than the explanation of the case wherein a man would not be guilty of "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11) by sending his wife away but not divorcing according to the Law--giving the "bill of divorce." It was when a marriage was resulting in fornication because it was illegal. We have TWO New Testament examples of this very situation (Matt. 14:4; 1 Cor. 5:1). In neither case was anyone urged to divorce. Put away, yes. But not divorce. There is no need to divorce when there is no legal marriage. Now who can honestly say this explanation makes no sense?
| 
