|
The apostle Paul spoke of "the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3). He also tells us, "For God is not the author of confusion..." (1 Cor. 14:33). Unfortunately, the "doctrines and commandments of men" (Mark 7:7) make many biblical issues appear complicated, problematical and convoluted, which make the word of God appear to be something it is not. The question, "Who may marry?"--often referred to as "MDR" (marriage, divorce and remarriage) is a perfect example.
One thing that contributes greatly to the problem noted above is that many seek to teach before they have actually studied enough to be sure they are right. Some study but use poor hermeneutics and will never get it right, and thus should not attempt to teach. Such was the sobering warning given by James: "My friends, we should not all try to become teachers. In fact, teachers will be judged more strictly than others" (James 3:1, CEV).
Another problem is that people often love tradition more than truth. Jesus addressed this problem when he spoke of the digression that had taken place in the Jewish religion. He said, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). The apostle Paul addresses this matter more specifically with a sobering warning: "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thes. 2:10-12).
The teaching of men on MDR has evolved to the point that preachers and elders feel compelled to investigate and make judgments as to whether or not certain people have a right to a marriage. But in this area even professional investigators and judges would usually fail. Attempts to remedy the problem are made by teaching that only the person who initiates the divorce for fornication may marry. But this theory, though thought to be supported by the Bible, is contrary to scripture and is very problematic. It discourages reconciliation and encourages a race to the courthouse, which is the opposite of what Jesus and Paul would have church leaders to practice.
This subject is really simple. Divorce ends a marriage and frees the parties. While there should be a good reason for breaking a covenant divorce ends it REGARDLESS of the reason. We know this is true because when a Jewish man divorced a woman his "reason" was never questioned, yet the woman was free to "go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:1, 2, KJV).
Paul is clear in his teaching about the need for marriage and whether or not any who have no marriage may marry (1 Cor. 7:1, 2; 8, 9; 27, 28). In verses 1 and 2, he commanded church leaders to allow every man and every woman to have a spouse and then gave the specific reason why he gave the command. In verses 8 and 9, he talked about those "unmarried" (divorced) and commands church leaders to "let them marry". In verses 27 and 28, he contrasts the word "bound" (married) with "loosed" (divorced) and states that those loosed do not sin if they marry. The icing on the cake was when Paul put the traditional doctrine that forbids marriage, into the category of "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
Moses defined divorce to include a certificate (Deut. 24:1, 2) and God confirmed that definition with a personal example (Jer. 3:8). Thus, if the certificate is not presented to the one to be divorced (except possibly in the case noted in 1 Cor. 7:15) there is no legal/scriptural divorce. Jesus' teaching, which traditionalists insist contradicts Moses' Law and who unsuccessfully assert that it did not apply to the Jews at the time He spoke, but only after the cross, has to be twisted to support their teaching. They assert that the woman that is "sent away" (Gk apoluo) without a divorce certificate, according to the Law, is divorced. (That is NOT what the text says.) This is what makes them guilty of charging Jesus with contradicting the Law, which would have been sin for which the Jews would have killed him. But He was simply dealing with their evil practice of not following the Law that would allow the woman to "go and be another man's wife." When we read Mark's account it becomes clear what the men's sin was for which they were guilty. Jesus said they "committeth adultery against her" (Mk 10:11). This is not consistent with the traditional teaching that the man who "divorces" his wife commits adultery WITH a woman he might marry. The latter is irrational because at the time Jesus spoke those words the men were allowed to have as many wives as they wanted, or could afford. And of course, traditional teacher force their proof texts to apply equally to both man and woman in our day.
There was a motive for not divorcing (according to the Law) to free the woman. If the man did not actually divorce his wife, but just put away, he could keep the dowry the woman brought to the marriage. Yet even though it is clear the Jewish men had motive to put away but not divorce, traditional teachers take up for the Jewish men by insisting they were strict to follow the Law. Amazingly, instead, they charge Jesus with breaking contradicting Moses and thus breaking the Law. The seriousness of this charge cannot be overemphasized because if Jesus sinned He could not be the Savior. And isn't it interesting that enemies of Christ in His day did not charge Him with contradicting Moses' teaching on divorce, but that so-called friends of Jesus, 2000 years later, do it without hesitation?
This subject is really simple; the truth I've presented allows for harmony of the Scriptures and it in no way benefits the devil. In fact, he wants brethren to continue teaching his doctrine that has Moses teaching what God did not want, Jesus contradicting Moses, Paul contradicting Jesus, God teaching an unjust doctrine and Christians teaching and practicing his doctrine as they break up homes, impose celibacy and divide brethren and churches.
|
