|
When we set out to determine what the truth is regarding any matter, how should we proceed? Often young people ask their parents something about matters that concern them and at their young age they feel that the answer given must be correct simply because of the source. Unfortunately, many never set out to determine truth regarding who has a right to a marriage; they simply have always accepted without question whatever their church taught. They hear "sound" gospel preachers preach the subject of marriage and divorce – asserting how simple it is and that those who disagree are just seeking to promote adultery, etc.
If you truly want the truth on MDR you must look at the various theories and ask yourself, "What makes the most sense?" Let us look at two theories:
DOCTRINE #1
It is generally taught (the traditional view) that Jesus said that one who is divorced commits adultery if he/she marries again, thus he/she must remain celibate or go back to his/her original spouse.
Problems: Jesus was a Jew and lived under the Law of Moses. He was viewed as a man and expected to follow the Law, not contradict it. It is significant that before Jesus began to teach what many think condemns the divorced to celibacy, He first stated that He had no intentions of changing the Law (Matt. 5:17, 19). It is clear that the Law allowed divorced women to marry (Deut. 24:1, 2). Thus, if Jesus said divorced people commit adultery when they marry again He did not keep His promise and He contradicted (transgressed) the Law. The basis for Jesus’ being the sinless sacrifice for our sins is that He lived a sinless life. If he contradicted the Law our religion is vain.
So, now ask yourself if doctrine # 1 makes any sense. If one argument is not enough, think about the fact that God is a just God, requires the same of us, and has never made a law that requires innocent persons to be punished.
Also, think about the fact that a divorced person is "unmarried" and that Paul commands to "let them marry" for "they sin not."
Here is another problem: Paul spoke of "forbidding to marry" as being "doctrines of devils."
Here is yet another problem: Divorce ends a marriage and Paul said to let every man and every woman have a marriage (1Cor.7:1, 2) so they can avoid fornication. Thus, if we deny them a marriage we put them in a vulnerable position to sin and cause many to turn from Christ.
Finally, this doctrine has no biblical harmony: It has Moses contradicting God, Jesus contradicting Moses and Paul contradicting Jesus.
Good Points: You can follow this theory and remain in fellowship with those who teach doctrine #1 -- who cannot see the problems with their doctrine and cannot receive or hear the evidence for doctrine #2.
DOCTRINE #2
Jesus taught that persons who are put away or sent out of the house (without a bill of divorcement, according to Moses' command) commit adultery if they marry another.
Problems: This theory is not supported by those who are deemed to be "scholars" of the Bible.
Answer: We make our own determinations as to what is truth. We look at how words are used elsewhere and in the context.
The theory is also contrary to tradition.
Answer: What our church teaches or what we have been taught may be wrong.
It is argued that the Greek word APOLUO meant divorce.
Answer: Indeed it does mean divorce in the minds of some, even though the word is used 87 times in the New Testament and several versions NEVER translate it as divorce. Some conservative members of the church are even arguing that a divorce takes place even without the "bill of divorcement" and that such was the case during the time of Moses. They argue that the "bill of divorcement" was not an integral part of divorce. It all depends on the definition of divorce. God gave the definition and it included a "bill of divorcement." In fact, it was a command (Mark 10:3-5). Without the bill of divorcement there was no divorce.
Good Points:
All who hear and obey the gospel are forgiven of past sins and all persons are allowed to have a marriage so they can live a happy life, free from undue sexual temptation, sin and guilt.
The doctrine is simple. It allows Jesus' words to be believed exactly as He said them. It can be believed without contradicting any rule of hermeneutics. Evangelists who know and practice this doctrine will be encouraged knowing that they will not drive away 50 percent of those whom they teach and who are ready to obey the gospel. They also will not have to present the news to anyone (as the traditional view requires in many cases) that to be a Christian a family must break up (a legal divorce) and the parents live celibate the rest of their lives.
Conclusion:
I have changed my position on MDR twice. I first believed the traditional view, which I accepted because it was all that I had heard taught. Then I accepted the view that Olan Hicks and many others hold. It did not have many of the problems associated with doctrine #1, but the problem it has it that it still have Jesus contradicting the Law of Moses.
Finally, I accepted doctrine #2 because it makes sense.
|
