|
How
often do we hear brethren explain Jesus' teaching as being that those "put
away for fornication" have no right to marry? Furthermore, they insist
that only the one who "puts away his spouse for fornication" may marry
another. We hear it often, but is the statement in harmony with the scriptures?
If brethren would just step back and take a look at the big picture they could
see the problems inherent in this position. In this chapter I propose to note a
few of those problems.
First,
it must be acknowledged that Jesus' teachings had to be in harmony with the Law
under which he lived. Otherwise, he would have transgressed that Law and
therefore would have sinned and could not be the sinless Savior. This reasoning
is sound and the argument is irrefutable. That Jesus did not transgress the law
is as fundamental to unity on divorce and remarriage as "inspiration of
the scriptures" is to all believers.
Second,
it must be acknowledged that the Law allowed divorced women to "go become
another man's wife." The fact that the divorce procedure was given (Deut
24:1-4) is proof that, because of the fact that men had hardened hearts,
divorce was authorized of God. Thus, one's exegesis of texts like Matthew 5:32
and 19:9 must harmonize with the known facts, as noted above.
Third,
under the Law there was no "putting away for fornication" (adultery)
as the term is used by brethren today. What is meant when the phrase (noted
above) is used is that remarriage is only allowed if one divorces his spouse
for adultery. If we are really interested in the facts of the matter we must acknowledge
that the Law did not allow divorce for adultery--it stated that adulterers were
to be stoned.
Fourth,
the teaching of our day is that if a divorce was not for fornication the person
is not permitted a spouse unless he goes back to his former spouse. Thus, even
if both parties have married another, divorce is encouraged so that the
original marriage might be reinstated. This is contrary to the teaching of the
Law. The Law stated that it was an abomination
for a man to take back his wife after he had married another. To him she was
defiled (Deut 24:4) and to take her back would “cause the land to sin.” Has God
changed his thinking about this? Whether God has or has not changed his
thinking the practice noted above is not justified by Jesus' teachings because
Jesus did not contradict the Law on divorce. He only rebuked the Jews for their
misconception of what the Law actually said, as well as for their practice of
"putting away" instead of divorcing, which was contrary to the Law
for divorce as it demanded a divorce procedure.
The
fifth problem with the common usage of the phrase "put away
fornicator" is that the exception clause is completely misunderstood. If
one is able to see and acknowledge the problems noted above he should then be
able to see what I'm going to say next. The phrase "put away" comes
from the Greek word apoluo. It simply
means “to send away, repudiate, or put away,” and the best translators never translate it as divorce. The Jewish men would have had
to give back the dowry they received from the woman's father if they actually
divorced according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Thus, they continued the evil
practice of "putting away" and not releasing by giving a full legal
divorce, even after Moses authorized the divorce procedure, which would free
the woman.
Finally,
the exception clause applied only to cases in which the marriage itself was
fornication. The problem here is that most are programmed to see this
"fornication" as a willful sexual act committed against the spouse
with another person. This was not the situation to which the exception clause
applied. It applied to a situation where the "marriage" itself was illicit or unlawful. Please note the response by the disciples to Jesus'
comment involving the "exception": "His disciples say unto him,
If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry" (Mt
19:10). Their reasoning was, if the marriage is not legal and would result in
"fornication" it would be better not to marry the woman. Remember, in
the Greek language, which is the original language of the New Testament, the
same word (gune) is translated as both “woman” and “wife.” Thus, Jesus’
disciples were reasoning that one should not marry his woman or fiancé if it is
contrary to the Law. Here are some scriptural examples: Mark 6:18; Lev 20:21; 1
Cor. 5:1
Does
this not make much more sense than the idea that the disciples took issue with
God, who said "it is not good that man should be alone," or the idea
that Jesus changed the Law of Moses, and now declares that all who are divorced
must remain celibate and the remarried must divorce? The entire “divorce and
remarriage text” makes complete sense when we see that what Jesus said is true:
that adultery is committed when one merely "puts away" and marries
another. Why? The answer is, because the man dealt treacherously with his wife
to whom he is still legally married.
If
the problems with the traditional position that I have listed above are not
enough to cause one to do some rethinking, consider that any view that is not
in harmony with the nature of God simply must be wrong. It is not God's nature
to punish innocent people with celibacy when they are unwillingly divorced.
Thus, it is time for the masses to rethink their position on divorce and
remarriage. | 
