|
[This is a review of an article by Donnie V. Rader, which was published in Truth Magazine in 1998. Donnie sets forth the position that the Scriptures teach that divorced persons must remain celibate or face eternal damnation. Robert Waters challenges that view, showing serious problems with it and offers a position that is believable.]
"There is a trend towards softening the gospel message. As society and the religious world moves in a more liberal direction, we too are affected. In that effort to be more tolerant, some have made the gospel message more palatable by ‘smoothing it out’ in various ways.
"What the Bible says about marriage, divorce and remarriage has not been exempt from this approach. A softened or smoother version of what the Lord taught on this subject would obviously be more acceptable to the masses. This is not to say that those who teach some of the ideas discussed below have that as their motive."
The first red flag in Donnie Rader's article is that he assumes that what He believes Jesus taught is the answer, and asserts that it is so, yet he completely ignores the teaching of the apostle Paul on the issue. (Notice below my comments regarding "the text.") Such an approach is almost certain to result in erroneous conclusions. While it is true that Jesus did teach His Jewish brethren on the subject of marriage, it was Paul who answered specific questions on marriage in a letter to his Christian brethren in Corinth (1 Cor. 7:1). It is bad hermeneutics to build a doctrine on one passage and ignore other passages on the subject, or seek to make them harmonize with that one passage. From this study I hope you will be able to see that Jesus dealt with an issue that was largely unique to the Jews and that His teaching is not the same as brother Rader's teachings.
"What Does The Word Say?
"1. The text. Jesus said, ‘And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery’ (Matt. 19:9). Though other passages address the subject, this one well summarizes what the Bible teaches on divorce and remarriage."
The passage cited above is not THE text; it is merely one of many passages that we must examine to determine the truth on marriage. Preachers are often asked what the Bible teaches regarding divorced persons being allowed to marry. A very common response is, "All I can do is show you what Jesus said," and then they refer them to "the text." The querist is assured that "the Scriptures are very plain" (confirming their position), yet the teaching of Paul, for some reason, is ignored. Wasn't Paul inspired of God? Won't Paul's answers contribute anything to our learning? Is it possible that Paul's teachings are suppressed because what he says might give the querist a problem with believing the traditional position, which, unbelievably, requires legally married persons to divorce and remain celibate? If you have not seriously studied this issue you will be surprised at what Paul teaches and how clear the message is, which contradicts the teaching of brother Rader in his article. Let us note some key passages from the pen of Paul:
1 Tim. 4:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:1, 2; 8, 9; 27, 28; 36.
1Co 7:1 - Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Co 7:8 - I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1Co 7:27 - 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; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
1Co 7:36 - But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
In the above passages Paul is very clear about the need for marriage to "avoid fornication" and whether persons who are "unmarried," which includes those divorced, should be allowed to marry. Many have sought to find something in Paul's teaching that would support their view of what Jesus taught. Two passages are commonly misused in their efforts: Rom. 7:1-3 and 1 Cor. 7:10, 11.
Now, we know how brother Rader has interpreted what he calls “the” text regarding who has a right marry, but in view of what Paul clearly said is it not reasonable to question his interpretation? Indeed, there has to be another explanation for "the text" because Paul clearly commands us, regarding the "unmarried," to "let them marry." Of course Rader and others have attempted to explain Paul's teachings to harmonize with their doctrine, but the fact that these plain passages, noted above, are virtually never provided to those seeking the truth, speaks volumes.
"2. What does the text say about divorce? When Jesus was asked whether a man could divorce his wife for any reason (Matt. 19:3), he answered no. Though he didn't give a 'yes' or 'no' reply, the reasons he cited point to that conclusion (vv. 4-6). The only reason for divorce given by the Lord is 'fornication' (v. 9; cf. Matt. 5:32). Divorce for any other cause is without biblical authority."
Mr. Radar apparently hasn't studied the Old Testament text nor the Greek words in Jesus' reply. Jesus is addressing the practice of "putting away" for any reason not "divorcing for any reason." Also, he assumes that fornication is equivalent to adultery but the punishment for adultery was death. It seems a bit pointless to divorce an adulterer when she would be put to death anyway. Also, how can she remarry if she is dead?
The Pharisees did not ask if a man could divorce his wife for any reason. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluo) his wife for every cause." Unfortunately, some versions, particularly the newer ones, translate the Greek word “apoluo” as divorce. Thus it would be very easy for the reader to become convinced that Jesus indeed condemned marriage for a divorced person. But that conclusion can be drawn only if certain rules for Bible study are ignored. First, it is bad hermeneutically to draw a conclusion that has consequences that are impossible to accept. The Law allowed a divorced woman to "go be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:1, 2). Such was the obvious reason for the command to give the "bill of divorcement" and to "put it into her hand." Jesus lived under that Law and was obligated to follow it, just as any faithful Jew would. Considering the statement he made earlier there is no way He could have said something that was to be interpreted as changing what Moses had taught. Another "text" is Matt. 5:32, but it is important to note what Jesus said immediately BEFORE He said anything about the Jew's practice of "putting away." Please look carefully at this text beginning with Matt. 5:18:
Mt 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What Donnie Rader and many today are teaching has Jesus telling the Jews to do something that flatly contradicted the Law! Even though Jesus had clearly stated that no aspect of the Law would change "till all be fulfilled." The ONLY way Rader's doctrine can be made believable is for someone to show that all was "fulfilled" between the times Jesus said what was recorded in verse 19 and what was said in verse 32. Of course that will be impossible to do because it was all in one discourse.
Brother Rader states, "The only reason for divorce given by the Lord is 'fornication' (v. 9; cf. Matt. 5:32). Divorce for any other cause is without biblical authority." First, the Law had no such "exception clause." Therefore, if Jesus was here making new law, changing what Moses had said and giving an exception to it, then He added to the Law of Moses, thus transgressing it (Deut. 12:32). Second, persons who committed adultery were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10), thus Rader's explanation of the exception clause is implausible. (The "exception clause" will be fully explained later.)
Now, again, I want you to focus on the fact that brother Rader's teaching can be true only if Jesus broke His promise, as quoted above (Matt. 5:18, 19). Clearly, if Jesus taught what is commonly preached by the writers and readers of Truth Magazine then He broke one of the commandments of Moses (Deut. 24:1-4; Mark 10:3), and "taught men so," which would have made Him "Least in the kingdom of heaven." More than that, it would have made Him a transgressor of the Law, which would have disqualified Him to be the Savior (Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22). This all means that if Rader's conclusion regarding what Jesus taught is true then our religion is vain. Therefore, we have no alternative but to reject the conclusion espoused in his article and seek an answer that is reasonable and hermeneutically sound.
"3. What does the text say about remarriage? Jesus said that the man who puts away his wife (for a cause other than fornication) and marries another commits adultery. In that same text Jesus said that a man who puts away his wife (for fornication) and marries another does not commit adultery. In the second clause of our text Jesus said that the one who is put away commits adultery when he remarries."
First, note that brother Rader switches between saying "divorce" to saying "put away," as if they were interchangeable. But this only clouds the issue and makes it difficult to understand the real issue with which Jesus is dealing. Indeed, Jesus taught that one who is "put away" commits adultery if he/she remarries, and this is not hard to understand if it is taken exactly as stated; it is in harmony with the Law and believable. A woman who was put away or sent out of the house was certainly not free to remarry; and she would commit adultery if she did. It is only when one asserts that an actual divorce has taken place when one is merely "put away" that a number of problems become apparent.
Before we consider what the exception clause really means, please read the article (quoted below) by Mike Willis, editor of the journal in which brother Rader's article was published. Brother Willis ably explains a problem among the Jews that Jesus addressed in "the text" upon which Donnie Rader bases his assumptions.
(Deut. 24:1-4)
A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to legislate in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in which man was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for her future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and yet she could not live with her husband. This left her in destitute circumstances quite frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate was something that would aid women who had been put away by their husbands.
"The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put away his wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that she was free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were giving to them."
Mike Willis. Dayton, Ohio. Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, pp. 227-230; April 3, 1980.
Here is a link to an article that is evidence that men in Israel are, to this day, acting treacherously toward their wives by "putting away" and not fully releasing them in accordance to the command of Moses (Deut. 24:1-4; Mark 10:3).
www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-jewish-women-in-chains.htm
The exception clause "except it be for fornication":
The fact that the exception clause is not found in Mark's account, nor alluded to in any of the epistles, should cause us to question whether brother Rader has properly interpreted what he calls "the text" on divorce and remarriage. It is certainly not universally accepted that Jesus was referring to a person committing adultery in a legitimate marriage.
Note the paragraph below:
"The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this 'exceptive clause,' as it is often called, occurs also in Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew's 'exceptive clauses' are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's 'exceptive clause' is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful" www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm (footnote 21).”
While I do not agree that there is an "absolute prohibition of divorce" under any circumstances, since God Himself divorced, the author of the above article explains the "exception clause" in a way that is believable. Brother Rader's view simply encourages a race to the court house and, contrary to the nature of God, requires punishment for innocent people (Jer. 22:3; Job 4:7; John 7:24) by breaking up homes and imposing celibacy. All this is based upon the assumption that a divorce does not end a marriage unless it is initiated by the "innocent" one because the other in the marriage committed adultery. Nevertheless, a divorce does end the marriage. This was the case under the Law, and Jesus' teaching had to have been in harmony with it. Thus, when Jesus said, "Except it be for fornication," He was simply saying, “You may put away your wife, i.e., separate permanently and no divorce papers are needed, if the marriage is not lawful.” A margin note in The Geneva Bible (1599) concerning the term "put away" said, "that is, was not lawfully divorced." (See: http://www.genevabible.org/files/DailyScripture/Luke16Footnotes.htm) Note also how "The New Jerusalem Bible" translates Matt. 5:32: "But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." John the Baptist lost his head, literally, because he told the truth regarding Herod's "marriage" to his brother. He said "It is unlawful for thee to have her" (Matt. 14:4). The marriage was illegal. Thus, fornication was being committed and Herod needed to "put her away," or end the relationship - no divorce would have even been needed because the marriage was unlawful (Lev. 20:21).
"4. What does that demand? If we teach what Jesus taught in Matt. 19:9, our message will not always be 'smooth' to the ears of our listeners. Those who divorce for causes other than fornication will be pricked by what Jesus said. Those who remarry contrary to what Jesus authorized will be disturbed. Those living in adultery must cease their sin of adultery (separate from an unlawful mate) to conform to what Jesus said (cf. Mark 6:17-18). That would be anything but easy (cf. Ezra 10:9-10, 44)."
While it is true that God's message may not always be smooth to the hearers, we must not believe, preach and practice another man's teaching just because it is a very hard saying. It must be true! Even though God has named the very doctrine Rader promotes ("forbidding to marry" 1 Tim. 4:1-3), calling it "doctrines of devils," the passage has little or no effect on those who believe and practice it. They seem content with arguing that the passage applies only to Catholic priests, but remember, they choose to be priests and to be celibate. Their failure to practice celibacy, even though they have vowed to do so, and commonly indulge in various forms of fornication, should be an eye opener to the idea that God never intended man to live celibate (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 7:1, 2; 9; 36).
Many problems with the position Rader holds are ignored, as are the clear teaching of Paul, which contradicts it. A common argument goes something like this: "We have to accept what Jesus said." That goes without saying, but we must be sure we are right regarding what our Lord said and we cannot accept a conclusion that makes our religion vain.
Let us now compare a statement made by brother Rader to what Jesus actually said:
Rader: "The Lord's message is not a soft and smooth gospel."
Jesus: "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matt. 11:28-30).
The doctrine that Donnie Rader teaches requires breaking up marriages and imposing celibacy on any and all who have been divorced. Often the person who was divorced was not guilty of sin – the guilty one was the person doing the divorcing. Nevertheless, brother Rader, and others, argue that unless one instigates the divorce procedure for the cause of fornication the marriage is not dissolved (some see that the marriage is dissolved, and admit that it is so, but say there can be no remarriage simply because Jesus said so). Interestingly, they argue that the divorce does not free the innocent person to marry, but even though one was unfaithful, and the divorce was not really a divorce (they say), the other cannot divorce him/her and be free. He/she must remain celibate.
Now, imagine having taught an unmarried, single woman the gospel (that she is ready to obey) and, in your invitation to her, you had her read the text noted above. Then, before baptizing her you ask her if she has ever been divorced. She says her husband divorced her so he could marry another woman. You tell her that Jesus said a divorced person cannot marry. What is she going to think? She replies, "You showed me where Jesus said 'My yoke is easy and my burden is light' yet you say He demands that I remain celibate the rest of my life? How can this be? I want and need a husband and children. What have I done to deserve this? Your doctrine does not appear to be in harmony with what Jesus taught.” And you are taken aback by her comment. All you can think of is the usual response when one questions this doctrine that forbids marriage: "The way of the transgressor is hard." But she quickly responds, "What sin have I committed?"
This woman, who has been legally divorced, is obviously in the category of the "unmarried" (1 Cor. 7:8, 9). Now, we know the answer that Paul, by inspiration, gave for people in the situation this woman is in. He says "let them marry." But Donnie Rader, based upon his assumption that "put away" means divorce, says she cannot ever marry. Whom are you going to believe, Rader or Paul?
"How Are Men Speaking Smooth Things About Divorce and Remarriage?
"1. Not teaching on divorce and remarriage at all. Those who just avoid the subject, whether it be because they think it to be too controversial or because they are afraid of the consequences, have softened the gospel message by leaving that part out."
The truth is, many "avoid the subject" because they are uncertain of the truth. They find what they have heard to be unbelievable. Others know the truth but do not teach it because of fear of persecution (to include losing their job) by men who hold the position that Donnie Rader teaches in his article.
"Some men, because their position differs from many in the congregation, will agree not to teach on divorce and remarriage. While they may not be teaching error, they are not teaching the truth. The whole counsel is not being preached (Acts 20:27). At least part of the word is not being preached (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Those who sit at the feet of such men may never hear the truth about divorce and remarriage."
Indeed, the truth needs to be preached, but what Donnie Rader is insisting be preached is merely conjecture as to what Jesus taught. The doctrine is based upon the assumption that "put away" means divorce and that Jesus therefore actually changed the Law (contradicting it) by saying divorced persons commit adultery if they marry. Because they so strongly believe that Jesus said and did what they contend, Paul's clear teachings are not given consideration.
"2. Encouraging divorce for any cause. The permanence of marriage that the Bible teaches is not popular. When some brother encourages divorce (teaches that it is scriptural) for causes other than fornication (as long as one does not remarry), he makes the message more acceptable to those who do not respect the fact that marriage is for life. That is a smoother message for the couple that fuss and fight all the time and want out of their marriage. God's law does not authorize it."
First, it is unfair and inaccurate to charge that teaching that a divorce ends a marriage is to be guilty of "encouraging divorce for any cause." While the Bible teaches that a divorced woman may "go be another man's wife" and that we are to let the "unmarried" marry, it also teaches the need for faithfulness. A Christian will make every effort to obey Paul who tells husbands to "love your wives and be not bitter against them" (Col. 3:19), and "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord" (Eph 5:22).
Rader's comment, above, assumes that divorce (as defined in the scriptures only by Moses) does not really end a marriage, putting the divorced into the category of the "unmarried" who Paul says can marry. While it is certainly God's will or intention that a couple remain together and happy, it is wrong to tell people who have divorced and married another, for whatever the reason, that they are not now married to their second spouse but in fact are still married to their first. This is nothing but an assumption based upon a conclusion drawn without properly applying and considering all the passages that relate to the issue. Many of the men and women upon whom celibacy is imposed were divorced and married again before becoming Christians. Thus, in such cases, there is no way that Rader's doctrine could have prevented a divorce. The usual result of the doctrine he teaches is that such persons, who are taught about Jesus, and what is perceived to be His celibacy requirement, reject the Lord. This cannot be justified by merely saying "the way of the transgressor is hard" or by saying those who see things differently are just trying to teach a smooth doctrine. The doctrine God called "forbidding to marry" indeed has results that meet the wishes of the devil. While Rader and others attribute undesirable results to the teaching of others they fail to see and acknowledge the horrible and tragic results of their own teaching and practice.
3. Teaching that the guilty party can remarry. The Lord's instructions (Matt. 19:9) allow one to put his mate away for fornication and remarry. Some brethren teach that the one who has been put away for fornication (‘guilty party’) can also scripturally remarry. That is a smooth message to the ears for the guilty party, because Jesus never authorized it. In fact, Jesus said, ‘and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery’ (Matt. 19:9b).”
Jesus' teaching was in harmony with Deut. 24 that authorized the woman to "go be another man's wife." Paul said, regarding the "unarried," to "let them marry." If that is "smooth" then it is smooth. If it is to be rejected then it needs to first be shown to be error. If you believe what Paul clearly said there can be no doubt that Rader's doctrine is error. The fact that what Rader teaches is not smooth for those who preach it, nor those who hear it, should not be surprising because it is one of the "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Thus, only the devil benefits when it is preached and practiced.
The article by Donnie Rader may be found in the volume noted below: Truth Magazine, XLII, No. 12 June 18, 1998. |
