|
One who was seeking to defend the traditional MDR doctrine that some are not eligible for marriage, made the following argument:
"Every time Paul even spoke of divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 it was to say don't do it. Not once does he offer permission to do it."
There are many things wrong with the above:
First, the statement avoids the real issue. The issue is can those who are divorced marry another? This Paul clearly answers. He stated that both the man and woman must be allowed to have a spouse (1 Corinthians 7:1, 2), and he gave the reason: so they could avoid fornication. It should be obvious to all that all who are divorced do not have a spouse and that if they don’t have a spouse it is contrary to the will of God to forbid them to have one. That is pretty clear teaching coming from the Apostle Paul. But God stacks evidence on top of evidence for those who might accidentally overlook one point. Through inspiration, Paul writes that the "unmarried" must be allowed to marry (8, 9). "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." The phrase "let them marry" is easy to understand. One would almost have to have help from another to misunderstand such plain language. Defenders of traditional MDR doctrine used to say a divorce doesn't end the marriage unless if was for fornication, but virtually all have given that argument up. They admit that the person is unmarried, but insist that unless he did the divorcing for adultery he cannot marry because Jesus said they could not. But they have a big problem: they are following the traditional teaching of men, charging that Jesus taught something that He did not teach, and are disobeying and even flatly contradicting the clear teaching of an inspired apostle of Christ.
Peradventure, if what we have noted regarding Paul's teachings to this point is not convincing enough, Paul spoke about the "loosed" (which, if any word means divorced this one does), and said if they marry they do not sin.
"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned…." (1 Corinthians 7:27, 28).
Clearly, Paul said if you are loosed (divorced) from a wife you do not sin if you marry.
This is POWERFUL evidence--plain language that refutes the common teachings that some unmarried people do not have a right to marry! Unfortunately, many evidently somehow miss the truth clearly taught by Paul and they seek to force these passages to harmonize with their tradition, but it is hard to change an obvious "yes" into a dogmatic "no." To say the very least, these passages should stop the dogmatism that continues to be exhibited from some in their teaching on their Web sites and their sermons and class teachings.
Was Paul against divorce? First, we do not find any clear statement from Paul indicating that divorce is always wrong. Nor does he say that the divorced may not marry, or that if they do they commit adultery. This concept evidently came about due to misunderstanding what Jesus taught. What we have already studied indicates that Paul recognized divorce as freeing one to marry. Yet there can be no misunderstanding as to Paul's desires for Christian couples.
Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them (Col 3:19).
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord (Eph 5:22).
Divorce is a far cry from being loving and submissive. Therefore, Paul encourages good family relations rather than openly approving or disapproving of divorce.
Some have concluded that Paul taught that one who is divorced must remain celibate. But there are many problems with that theory.
First, to believe Paul taught celibacy one has to disregard his teaching immediately preceding the text (verse 11). He clearly said that the unmarried (which includes those divorced) may marry. Thus, there must be some other explanation for what he said. (This point will be discussed further in this paper.)
Second, the reason for even drawing the conclusion that Paul taught celibacy is nothing but an effort to harmonize his teachings with what is perceived that Jesus taught. But Paul did not say a word about any "exception" or "reason" for acceptable divorce whereby one may marry another. And because Jesus' teachings were to Jews and Paul's were to Christians, it is significant what Paul did and did not teach. Why would Jesus wait till the Jewish dispensation was near an end to teach something contrary to Moses (Deut. 24:1-4) that would get Him killed—something that was supposedly intended to apply to the Christian dispensation--when He could just wait and let Paul do it by inspiration?
Third, the text that is used to teach celibacy is a statement to the married during a time of distress (verse 26) and deals with those who are merely separated.
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart (agamos) from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife (1 Corinthians 7:10,11).
The word translated "depart" in the KJV does not mean divorce. Rather, it is usually translated as depart, separated, and leave and implies an abandoning. But evidently the phrase "let her remain unmarried" has caused some to conclude that Paul was indeed speaking of divorce because if you are unmarried you are divorced. But are they even ready to draw that conclusion? Remember, in verse 8, Paul spoke of the "unmarried" and said "let them marry." Thus, if we conclude that "unmarried" means divorced in verse 11, why must we not be forced to conclude that it means the same in verse 8? The word is the same in both instances (agamos), but because of the context (which does not support the traditional view) they evidently are not the same. People who are separated are not divorced, although they naturally will be viewed as not being together, which Paul spoke of as agamos--usually translated as "unmarried." But there are exceptions which we note below:
Waymouth – "Or if she has already left him, let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is not to send away his wife."
Montgomery – "or if she has already left him let her either remain as she is, or be reconciled to him), and also that a husband is not to put away his wife."
JB Phillips – "To those who are already married my command, or rather, the Lord's command, is that the wife should not leave her husband. But if she is separated from him she should either remain unattached or else be reconciled to her husband."
If the wife has "departed" or already left, i.e., gone out of the home back to the parents, or wherever, she is exhorted to "remain as she is," which is in a sense "unattached," or go back to her husband (not ex-husband). Divorce is NOT under consideration. If a woman is actually divorced from her husband reconciliation would not be enough, she would need to marry him again. If the husband or the wife actually ends the marriage by divorce this text no longer applies. It applied to those who were separated, and the "present distress" must also be considered as a reason for Paul's instructions to those separated to not marry another. Certainly they would not be allowed to marry another without and before a divorce was actualized.
While most scholars understand that agamos means separation, they apparently had difficulties sorting things out to where they could accept the actual context. But one scholar of note nailed it:
Bloomfield [The Greek New Testament]:
"From the use of καταλλ and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise."
We find no approval from Paul for ending a marriage by giving a certificate of divorce, as was the instruction God gave through Moses to end a marriage. Nevertheless, Paul instructed the men to love their wives and to not abandon them (ISV) or leave them (ASV). He instructed the woman to honor her husband. But did he teach that one who was divorced by her spouse sinned and that SHE IS unworthy of marrying another, or that SHE WAS still married (bound) after a divorce? Obviously, that was not the message Paul intended to convey. If it were then what harmony is there in Paul's and Jesus' teachings? According to traditional MDR teachings, Jesus taught that if a spouse commits adultery it is fine to divorce him/her. Some have even said adultery ends the marriage. But Paul did not say one word about divorce being okay if it was for adultery. Why didn't he? Could it be that he didn't because he was not inspired to so do, because that was not what God intended to be taught? Paul was not out of harmony with Jesus and the reason for this is because Jesus did not teach that divorce is okay if done for adultery. We must not overlook the fact that Jesus taught Jews under Jewish law, but that it was Paul who dealt with questions Christians had asked regarding marriage. And of course, we must understand that Paul taught the commandments of Christ by inspiration ("the things I write unto you are the commandments of Christ," 1 Cor. 14:37). Thus, if Jesus wanted Christians to understand that one who is divorced cannot marry, unless it was for adultery, and that the guilty must remain celibate, He would have inspired Paul to so teach. But Paul made no such declaration.
I'm convinced that the "exception clause" of Matthew 19:9 was something different from what has traditionally been taught. First, the theory that He taught celibacy can only be true if Jesus contradicted the Law, because it allowed divorced women to "go be another man's wife." And sexual adultery was NEVER a reason for divorce under the Law. If a man and woman were caught doing such, BOTH were to be put to death. If Jesus taught celibacy for the divorced He was a transgressor. This would have given the Jews reason to kill him. But they did not charge that He was teaching contrary to the Law on this. Actually, Jesus dealt with a problem among the Jews that is still a big problem to this day--men apoluo-ing (putting away) a wife and marrying another. The Jews knew they were guilty of this, which is why they were silenced. Jesus said their putting away and marrying another was "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11) UNLESS if was for or because of fornication, i.e. the reason for the sending away or separation (not speaking of divorce) was because the MARRIAGE was not legitimate or legal. This was the case with Herod's marriage that John said was not lawful (Matthew. 14:4). He did not say Herod did not have a right to a marriage--just that this marriage was not lawful. He needed to apoluo and no certificate of divorce was even needed. To do so would not result in adultery against the wife, because she was not legally his wife.
The same was true of the man who had his father's wife (1Corinthians 5) or any incestuous relationship that was contrary to the Law. Also, the word "fornication" forbad marriages with the people of the land. At one point, the men repented and put such wives away. There is no mention of a certificate of divorce in such cases. Thus, we can understand what was really meant by the exception clause that Jesus noted.
Conclusion:
Both Paul and Jesus were against divorce and neither gave an exception whereby it was considered okay. But they both taught what God's ideal is and they both understood that God had established a law for divorce that would publicly end a marriage and free the unmarried to marry. We have presented passages and discussed what Paul taught. Jesus' teachings were basically the same:
Mat 19:3-6 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Related articles:
Jewish Women in Chains
http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-jewish-women-in-chains.htm
Did the Apostle Paul Teach Celibacy?
http://www.totalhealth.bz/apostle-paul-celibacy.htm
"Put Away" Versus Divorce, What does the case of Joseph and Mary Prove?
http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-put-away.htm
Apoluo Does NOT Mean Divorce
http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-apoluo.htm
|
