|
If an unbiased reader simply read the scriptures that
pertain to the question, “Who has a right to marry?” would they or
would they not conclude that divorced persons are ineligible for
marriage?
On a Bible discussion list a brother named Bruce made
the following statement:
"One would not come to brother Waters' position
by simply reading God's word."
First, my position is that divorced persons, which
include the “unmarried” that the apostle Paul talks about, have a right
to a marriage. That the word “unmarried” includes divorced persons is
easily established. With this thought planted in your mind let us
examine Paul’s teaching and see if what Bruce Reeves said is true.
Bruce’s statement might be true in some instances. It
would depend on what passage was read and from what version and where
the reader stopped reading. A common practice of preachers is to direct
MDR querists to Mt 19:9. This is often done without so much as a
mention that the epistles contain teaching regarding this subject.
Indeed, the Apostle Paul wrote an epistle to Christians who had
questioned him on the very matters that trouble brethren everywhere. To
understand Jesus' teachings the reader would need to be able to find
the Old Testament text that was under consideration (Deut. 24:1-4) and
it would be very helpful if the version from which he was reading was
not one of the new ones that completely change the meaning of the text.
It would also be helpful if the reader knew how to use online
dictionaries so he could find the definition of "put away." And it
would be helpful if he had access to lexicons and numerous versions of
the New Testament.
Suppose the diligent truth seeking reader of God's word,
upon examination of the texts used to try to show that Jesus taught
that divorced persons have no right to marry, realizes that Jesus was
talking to Jews under their Law and dealing with THEIR specific
problem. Suppose he realized that their Law allowed the
divorced to marry and that Jesus could not have changed the Law without
transgressing, which would be sin? Therefore, he searches for the word
"marry" and finds that Paul deals with the MDR issue in 1 Cor. 7.
Amazingly, among the items in his search string is the phrase, “let
them marry.” He turns to the chapter for the first time to read what
Paul writes by inspiration of God.
1 - Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
From the beginning the humble disciple would see from
the above passage that Christians had asked questions regarding
marriage and he would see that he is in the right place to learn the
answer to questions that have troubled him.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have
his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
The unbiased reader not only hears Paul say persons must
be allowed to have a spouse but he understands the reason: it will help
one to avoid fornication.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:
and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the
husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body,
but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with
consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer;
and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your
incontinency.
The reader in search of truth would certainly see the
importance that Paul places upon sexual activity, which is confined to
the husband/wife situation on which he has placed so much importance.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is
good for them if they abide even as I.
The reader would see that Paul is talking TO the
“unmarried.” He goes to the dictionary and learns that those who have
been divorced are “unmarried.”
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is
better to marry than to burn.
The reader hears Paul say to the Corinthian church that
they are to let the “unmarried” marry. He wonders: “How could anyone
not understand that? Why has there been all the fuss about whether
divorced persons are or are not eligible for marriage. Do they not
believe Paul settles the matter, since he addressed questions from
Christians?”
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the
Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
The reader would have to wonder what “depart” meant.
Thus, he might go to Strong’s Lexicon and find the following:
[Grk. 5563] chorizo
(kho-rid'-zo)
from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go
away:--depart, put asunder, separate.
Thus, he realizes that “depart” does not mean divorce.
Nevertheless, he being able to put two and two together realizes that
if a woman is commanded not to depart she would also be commanded not
to divorce.
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.
The reader wonders how this harmonizes with what Paul
has already said, so he looks at some other versions to see what they
say. He finds two versions that render the passage through glasses not
tainted with the preconceived idea that divorce is in the context.
Thus, he understands that Paul is talking about couples who separate.
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."
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother
hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him,
let him not put her away.
The unbiased reader would see clearly that the believer
is not to “put away” his unbelieving wife.
Note: evidently, there was, among the Corinthians, a
number who understood that among the Jewish community those married to
heathens should simply “put away” those to whom they were unlawfully
married if they wanted to please God.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth
not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
The reader learns that the woman has the same
instruction as the man.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the
wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were
your children unclean; but now are they holy.
The reader reads the above and understands why the
marriage with someone not a child of God is acceptable with God.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A
brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath
called us to peace.
After reading the above, the reader would understand
that a Christian is not under bondage to an unbeliever who departs.
26. I suppose therefore that this is good for the
present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
The unbiased reader would surely understand that the
“present distress” was very much a concern, which was the reason for
the advice that it would be good not to be married.
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed.
Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
The reader would have to understand that “bound” means
“to be married” (or obviously included it) and that those married
should seek not to be loosed. Then he would likely want to know what
Paul meant by “loosed.” Thus, he looks it up:
G3080
λύσις
lusis
Thayer's Definition:
1) a loosing, setting free
a) of a prisoner
b) of the bond of marriage, divorce
rw: The reader would logically conclude that the above
passage is taking about divorce.
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.
The unbiased reader would likely conclude from the above
that a divorced person is being told he would not sin if he marries,
just as a “virgin” would not sin if/when she marries.
After reading about the “trouble in the flesh” and
understanding the issue regarding the “present distress” the reader
would now fully understand the Apostle Paul’s intentions regarding who
has a right to marry. He would know that if a husband and wife are
having problems and separate they should remain as they are, which is
married to each other.
The reader remembers that 1 Timothy 4:1-3 was in his
search string, so he goes to the passage and notes the context.
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience
seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from
meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them
which believe and know the truth.
The reader sees that there has been a prophecy about
some who would be guilty of “forbidding to marry.” He also sees that
Paul puts such into the catalog of “doctrines of demons.” Thus, he
would likely conclude that “forbidding to marry” is not a good thing
and should not be practiced. If a question regarding what “forbidding
to marry” meant came into his head he would remember what he had
learned in 1 Cor 7 where Paul gave the command to let the unmarried
marry and he would understand that it simply was the opposite of what
Paul commanded. In view of the clear teaching of Paul to “let them
marry” (regarding the “unmarried”) the idea that “forbidding to marry”
simply applied to the Roman Catholic religion would likely not enter
his head. (Besides, Priests and Nuns choose the life they live.) He
would understand that anyone who would deny an unmarried person the
right to marry would be teaching “doctrines of devils.”
One final point: Does Paul answer any question about
whether we are to punish one who is divorced? He did say, “let them
marry,” didn’t he? So why can we not just agree to do what Paul said?
| 
