|
The
people of God have been engaged in controversy over divorce and remarriage
since the days of Moses. Although divorce is usually not a good thing it was
many years after the death of Christ that men got the idea that a person who
had been divorced was no longer eligible to have a spouse. Of course, God foresaw
the damage this evil idea could do to his people and inspired men to deal with
the matter. Though it is likely that in 1 Timothy 4:1-4, Paul had in mind a
sect or religion, who can deny that his condemnation of the practice of
“forbidding to marry” was to be applied to any who would do the same in
principle? Also, the apostle Paul wrote a rather lengthy chapter that was
evidently designed to deal with questions from Christians (to include us today)
who wanted guidance regarding God’s will in the matter of divorce and
remarriage.
The
Christian is referred to in the scriptures as a “soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Tm
2:2). Even a popular song exhorts “Soldiers of Christ arise and put your armor
on.” Many have put on their armor and are engaged in the war currently called
MDR (marriage, divorce and remarriage). When there is a war, there are sides,
rules of engagement, rules of ethics, tactics, abilities, confrontations,
hostilities, lies, fighting, battles, ploys for peace, cries for division,
mercies, judgments, atrocities, hatred, friendships, allies, cronies, enemies,
casualties, victims, punishing, executions, suffering, champions, spectators,
photographers, winners and losers. In a war, people take sides and we have
rules. The winners in the MDR war will be those who learn, accept, practice and
teach the truth.
Our
efforts to capture the minds of the sincere on the MDR issue is truly a war,
and each aspect of the study between those who are ostensibly set in their
beliefs and ways is a fierce battle. It is inconceivable that a Christian would
not want to get involved in learning God’s will about MDR. Satan uses many
devices to shield the multitudes from the truth. Considering that MDR is
undoubtedly the most conflict-ridden, divisive and troublesome Bible subject it
surely would help if we could back off and look at this war as a neutral or
unbiased party might view it.
Observations
Regarding the Participants Involved in the MDR War:
Both
honest and dishonest people engage in the MDR war, but some (so it seems) are
more honest than others.
Both
prejudiced and open-minded people participate in the war, and some are more
prejudice than others.
Honorable
and dishonorable men and women are involved in the war.
Some
engage in the battles because they like to fight, whereas others do so because
they are compelled to so do (as was the apostle Paul to preach–1 Cor 9:16).
Some
engage in battle because they are determined to defend and maintain tradition,
whereas others do so because they are committed to the defense of truth.
Some
believe in their cause, whereas, others are fighting just because. Some are at
war because they hate the enemy. Unfortunately, some are confused as to who the
enemy is. But some are at war because they love truth and all people and want
to assure that God’s means of avoiding fornication is available to all (1 Cor
7:2).
Most
who discuss MDR are in a battle for the minds. Some are smart and know how to
persuade, whereas, others have no clue about what evidence is necessary to make
their position appear believable. Some use honorable means to persuade. Others
seem to be even willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy whom they perceive
to be the enemy. Because of their imprudence truth suffers and the Lord’s
church is shamed.
Methods
and Tactics:
When
it comes to methods and tactics in battle some think it necessary or helpful to
call names, such as “liberal” and “false teacher,” "errorist," etc.
Some make unjustifiable, false and slanderous charges and make judgmental
accusations regarding motives and eternal destiny. Others endeavor to stay with
the issues, to be brotherly and leave the judging to God.
Some
use sophistry, confusion, innuendo, equivocation and other measures designed to
prevent honorable and productive exchange of thoughts and ideas. Others
endeavor to fight using honorable rules. Some build straw men, erect decoys and
blow smoke. But others refuse to employ such devices.
The
Issues:
The
issues in the MDR war are neither clear to all nor settled in the mind of most.
Some
say the real issue is about marriage,
whereas some say it is about divorce.
Others say it is about treachery -
putting away without releasing by giving a bill of divorcement, or at least
this is what some understand Jesus to have condemned.
Some
say the issue is about avoiding adultery, whereas some say it is about avoiding
fornication maintaining that marriage, a tool from God, is for all so they can
avoid sexual sins (1 Cor 7:1, 2).
Some
say marriage is not good (even sinful) for some. God says, "It is not good
that man should be alone" (Gen 2:18).
Some
say the church must not fellowship those who have been divorced if they insist on
getting married or staying married. Others contend that all sins are forgivable
(following repentance) and that marriage must be allowed in order to avoid a
number of problems:
1)
Outright disobedience to God (1 Thes 4:1-3);
2)
Causing division;
3)
More divorce (covenant breaking); causing those down because of divorce to be
further traumatized; and
4)
Placing on the divorced a burden hard to bear, which usually result in their rejecting
or turning from Christ.
Some
say adultery is committed by having sex in a second marriage. Some argue that a
man cannot commit adultery with his spouse. Others argue that a man commits
adultery "against her" (his wife—Mark 10:11) if he "puts her
away" and marries another. Some say this makes perfect sense because if
that was all he did he would still be married to her.
Some
say "put away" means legal/scriptural divorce. Others say it is possible to be “put away” but NOT
legally/scripturally divorced, which, if true, proves that “put away” is not
the same as divorce.
Some
say divorce is sinful and those divorced cannot marry without committing
adultery. Others contend that divorce ends a marriage and that all
"unmarried" (1 Cor 7:2; 8, 9) persons have a right to a spouse.
Some
are arguing that the proper hermeneutic involved in the issues is to consider the
audience, the immediate circumstances (including the practices of those asking
the questions of Jesus), the law under which the teachings of Jesus were given
and the consequences of any given position. Others seem to be content with
their proof texts while ignoring sound hermeneutics.
Some
say we must know some Greek to fully understand MDR. Others are confident we
can get the facts if they look to the most trusted, accurate, and reliable
translations.
Some
argue that the Gospels, which record Jesus' teachings to the Jews on MDR, are part
of the Old Testament; whereas others say the Gospels are New Testament law. And
yet others say it doesn’t matter, that God’s law pertaining to divorce has not
changed, and that in Jesus’ teaching we must consider who is addressed and what
the circumstances were.
Some
argue that the New Testament epistles containing instructions to Christians
(which include sex, marriage, divorce and remarriage) should be the first place
to start in building a foundation for knowledge. Yet others look first to
teachings of Jesus to the Jews and then seek to harmonize the teachings in the
epistles (written to Christians) with their understanding of the teachings of
Jesus to Jews regarding an issue that was mostly unique to them. Strangely
enough, the latter are willing to accept the fact that Jesus could not and did
not transgress the Law but refuse to apply this fact in the case of MDR, which
would destroy their idea that a divorced person commits adultery if he remarries.
Divorced women (and the men who divorced them) were allowed to marry under the
Law (Deut 24:1-4).
Some
contend that Jesus was teaching "new law," which was not applicable
to the Jews but would become effective at Jesus' death. Others argue that what he
taught must have been applicable to those to whom he spoke at the time—else he
did not tell them the truth.
Some
contend that one can "put away" for any cause; others contend that
"put away" comes from a word that does not mean divorce and that
"putting away" without giving the "bill of divorcement" is
what God hates (Mal 2:16). Some
actually encourage divorce and a race to the courthouse by insisting that one
may divorce his spouse only if he/she divorces for adultery.
Some
contend that the meaning of adultery
is to be determined by lexicons written by men; others contend that meanings of
words are best determined by how they are used in context.
Some
contend that adultery is committed
when one divorces his/her spouse, marries and has sex. Others contend that
adultery is committed when one "puts away" his spouse and marries
another (as the text says) because "putting away" is not a complete
legal divorce, which means the marriage still legally/scripturally exists.
Some
say “adultery” in certain passages is metaphoric or spiritual and reject these
passages as being helpful in defining adultery.
Some say adultery is adultery regardless.
All
that many can see in the definition of “adultery” is “sexual intercourse,” which
is only an act that is committed with someone outside the marriage. Others
affirm that the real sin is much more than the sexual act itself; it is the
betrayal, disloyalty, and treachery, which so often result in heartache,
splitting of families and, during the time of Jesus, women’s being left
destitute to care for themselves.
Some
accuse brethren of teaching that “Anyone may marry anyone”. What member of the
Lord’s church believes that? The real
issue is, may an unmarried man or woman (which includes one divorced) marry
another person of the opposite sex who is also unmarried and not close kin?
Arguments:
Some
argue that only God can unite a
couple and only God can end a
marriage. Others argue that a marriage is a covenant between a man and woman,
with God as witness. They use Malachi 2:14 to show that the covenant is between
the man and the woman and God witnesses it. Some argue that it is indeed true
that only God can divorce, but man can accomplish it by following God's command
for how it is to be done (Deut 24:1-4).
Some
contend that when God said, “Let not man put asunder” he meant that it was not possible for man to so do; whereas
others contend that “let not” does not mean cannot.
Some
contend that when men under the Law were putting away their wives and Moses
commanded them to give them a “bill of divorcement” (Deut 24:1-4) it was for no
practical reason. Others contend that, although Moses was not sanctioning
divorce, the paper was for the benefit of the woman so she “may go be another
man’s wife.”
Some
argue that Jesus could not have gone against Moses’ Law, because the Jews
viewed him as a man and would have charged him with sin. Others insist Jesus,
because he was God, could and did change the law, yet they have no plausible
explanation as to why the Jews did not charge him with sin in allegedly
contradicting Moses, which would have been a sinful act worthy of death.
Some
contend that when one is unjustly divorced the divorced one may then mentally put his/her spouse away “for
fornication” and be free to marry. Others maintain that the original divorce
must be initiated by the innocent spouse “for fornication” if there is to be
“eligibility” for marriage. Yet others maintain that “unmarried” persons have a
right, given from God, to marry (Gen 2:18; 1 Cor. 7:8, 9; 27, 28).
Some
say the only ones who are qualified or eligible for marriage are:
1)
“Those never married”;
2)
“Those who have divorced their spouse for fornication”; and
3)
“Those whose spouse has died.”
These
words are often uttered or written as if the words themselves are authority
from God and settle the matter.
Others
maintain that the qualifications for marriage are clearly set forth by an
inspired apostle: 1) the male must be a “man”; the female must be old enough or
have reached “the flower of her age”; and 2) to be a candidate for marriage one
must be “unmarried” (1 Cor 7:8, 9), which of course includes the never married,
the divorced, and the widowed.
Some
contend that the divorced are still married. Others contend that such is
contrary to the Law, the New Testament, reason and Scripture; and further
contend that if one is “still married” to a previous spouse when he marries
another, then those who would disallow it should first prove their assertion
and then charge them with bigamy.
Some
contend that the divorced and remarried are not truly married “in God’s eyes.” Others
contend they are truly married, in the second marriage, but commit adultery
(when they have sex) just because “Jesus said so.” Others accept that a couple
is truly married when they have covenanted with each other according to the
applicable law of the land in which they abide.
Some
encourage the breakup of marriages (where one has been divorced) and demand
that one or both live a celibate life. Others baptize all believers, including
those who have been divorced, show them both
sides of the arguments on MDR and let them decide what to do.
Some
feel obligated and duty bound by scripture to refuse to baptize one who is
married, but who has been divorced, unless he shows “repentance” by agreeing to
break up the marriage and live celibate. Others consider such to be tantamount
to "forbidding to marry," which is described by Paul as
"doctrines of devils" (1 Tim 4:1-3), and they point to 1 Corinthians
7:2, 8, 9 as authorization for having a spouse.
Some
contend that it is unjust, unreasonable and unscriptural to punish people with
celibacy for the sins of another, such as when one has been a faithful spouse
but was divorced by an unfaithful spouse. Others contend that Jesus taught
celibacy in Matthew 5:32 and that such is God’s will. They argue that “the way
of the transgressor is hard” but fail to show how an innocent one who was
divorced by his/her spouse has transgressed or how punishing an innocent one
does any good. Neither can they show how punishing the innocent fits in with
God’s grace and justice.
Some
contend that Jesus taught “celibacy” in his statement to those who said (in
view of what He had taught), “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is
not good to marry.” Others contend that the disciples were agreeing that one
should not marry someone if it would result in fornication, such as in the
examples of incest in the New Testament (1 Cor 5:1). Jesus answered saying,
someone who had become a eunuch, for whatever reason, could “receive it”, but
not all men, “save they to whom it is given.” Those who found themselves in an
illegal or incestuous marriage could receive it, for it was given to them.
Some
contend that Paul taught celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. Others contend
that the case Paul discussed was to be considered in a situation where a
divorce had not yet occurred, and in view of “the present distress” (1 Cor.
7:26-28).
Some
contend that Romans 7:1-4 teaches that one who is divorced may not marry
another as long as the divorcing spouse lives. Others contend that the passage
was never intended to be an MDR text.
All
would, or should, agree that God’s laws contain no loopholes. Yet, those who
would tell a divorced person that he may not marry as long as the spouse to
whom he is still “bound” lives, realize and admit that the divorced spouse
could murder their previous spouse and scripturally remarry. Some have pointed
out that one could kill the spouse that divorced him and thereby be free to
marry, and that this admitted fact proves the divorced may marry, unless God’s
law does indeed contain a loophole. The final argument is that since God’s law
provides no loopholes it becomes obvious that a major principle or belief among
Christians is based upon an invalid premise, which violates sound hermeneutics.
Some
argue that no command or example in the entire Bible forbids an unmarried
person from marrying. Others just argue that we don’t have to have an example. “Just
believe what Jesus said,” they say.
Some
assert that the teachings of Jesus are “plain and emphatic.” Others remind them
that the same argument is made by advocates of “faith only” pertaining to their
proof texts and emphasize the need to observe proper hermeneutics, which
require that one consider all that is said on the matter of salvation and then
draw a conclusion that is logical.
Some
contend that when a man divorces his wife “for fornication” and marries another
that the divorced one is still “bound” and is not eligible for marriage. Others
wonder how one person in a marriage can be free (after a legal divorce) from
the covenant and not the other. It is a conundrum.
The
phrase “Let them marry” is found
twice in the New Testament (1 Cor 7:8, 9, 36). Some contend that the passages
are talking about only those who are “eligible” to marry, and state that divorce
makes them ineligible. Others contend that the context indicates that the
“unmarried” and “any man” (to include the divorced) have a right to marry.
Some
assert that some men have no right to a marriage. Others point out that “any
man” (according to Paul) may have a marriage without sin (“he sinneth not”) and
any who would object must “let them marry” (1 Cor 7:36).
Conclusion
It is a real challenge for one to restudy divorce and
remarriage like it was for the first time, free of preconceived ideas. Yet a
person must, and with an intense determination to learn the truth. But before
that will happen he must have resolved in his mind that he is going to find the
truth and will teach it and practice it regardless of whether others like it or
not.
| 
