|
It is unfortunate that many preachers have misunderstood Jesus's teaching regarding the matter of a "put away" person marrying. A foundational fact that is either not seen or simply rejected because it goes contrary to tradition and "what we have always taught," is that "put away" (from the Greek apoluo) does not mean divorce to people who understand the Bible's teaching regarding divorce and marriage. Jesus was simply dealing with the evil practice of Jewish men putting away (sending away) their wives but without following God’s commandment for freeing them to "go and be another man's wife" (See Mark 10:3; Deut. 24:1,2; Jer. 3:8). Moses' command, given by inspiration of God, was for the man to write a bill of divorcement and put it into the hand of the woman before sending her "out of the house." Failure to so do was "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). It was a treacherous act far worse than divorce, with one exception. This would be where the man ended the relationship because of fornication, such as where the marriage was not legal (See 1 Cor. 5; Matt. 14:4) and therefore no public or legal divorce was necessary.
While Jesus dealt with an issue unique to the Jews - a practice that continued into the 21st century, Paul answered questions from Christians regarding the question, "who may marry?" His reply is recorded in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. The chapter supports the idea of marriage being healthy and needful "to avoid fornication". But it also contains commands that are too simple to misunderstand without help. Unfortunately, many misunderstand and or simply ignore, twist, or reject Paul's commands because they are unable to see or unwilling to accept the truth regarding Jesus' teachings. Let's now look carefully at Paul's effort to get brethren see the need to let people who have no marriage marry.
Moses' teaching, to which both the Pharisees and Jesus referred for authority, clearly establishes that divorce, if done according to God's command, ENDS marriage. The result of a marriage being ended is that both the man and the woman are then "unmarried." With this teaching being understood by his readers Paul makes some commands and statements that were directed to men who might think it is their responsibility to forbid certain people (those divorced, or those divorced but not for some particular reason, or those divorced but who did not initiate the divorcing themselves) from marrying. This kind of action was condemned by Paul in his letter to Timothy where he put "forbidding to marry" into the category of "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1-3). There are three passages in chapter 7 that are impossible to explain by those who feel obligated to break up legal marriages and impose celibacy. They are 1 Cor. 7;1,2; 8,9; 27, 28. Let us take a close look at each.
1 Cor.7;1, 2 (ASV) "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."
Paul had evidently received a letter from the church regarding questions pertaining to marriage to which he was responding. He begins with a direct command to allow each man and each woman to have a spouse. Thus, if someone was unmarried, which is the case when one is divorced according to God's definition (Deut. 24:1,2; Jer. 3:8), the reader who might be against marriage, whether for one divorced or never married, would understand they were being told to stand down.
8, 9 (KJV) "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
In the above passage, Paul seems to want to make sure his readers understand his previous command and that they obey. In this passage, he not only gives the same command, which pertains to all who are "unmarried," which by definition includes the divorced, but he also gives his reason for the command. He says, if the "unmarried" need marriage "to avoid fornication" (see verse 1,2) i.e., "they cannot contain," then "let them marry." The reason for marriage is that burning in lust is not good. Marriage solves that problem. Yet, again, some feel obligated and compelled to keep them from this tool that God has provided for the purpose stated.
27, 28 (KJV) "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 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."
Because many today misunderstand and misapply Jesus' teaching and teach contrary to it and Paul's teaching is there any wonder why God would inspire Paul to continue to endeavor to make himself clear? Evidently, God wanted to be as clear as possible so honest people would not easily be deceived. First, Paul is NOT addressing those who are widowed or never married (virgins). It is clear that he is addressing men who either are married ("bound") or are "loosed" (divorced) from a marriage. He first gives his opinion that it would be better to not marry at the that time, due to the "present distress" (vs 26) but follows with the statement that if they do marry it is not a sin. Don’t miss the point that Paul made in his contrast regarding the bound and the loosed. First, he asked, "Art thou bound unto a wife?" The word "bound" implies marriage. Then he asked, "Art thou loosed from a wife." The word "loosed" may refer to having been divorced or it may be applicable to the situation where a man becomes loosed and unmarried due to the death of his spouse. Yet the context indicates that he is addressing men who have been divorced from a woman.
While we understand that God’s definition of divorce requires that His conditions (commands) be obeyed before the marriage can rightfully be considered as ended some, in defense of their traditional teachings and practices, are making some absurd arguments.
First, those who have knowledge of the Greek language, as used by Jesus, or who just have common sense and know that "apoluo" does not mean divorce, as God defined it, are still contending that it (apoluo) mean divorce. But they are doing it by changing the meaning of divorce. They say "separation" is divorce. In other words, they are saying that when a man sent his woman out of the house (without the certificate), which resulted in separation, that this was a divorce. This is a pathetic effort to force the accepted translation of apoluo as being "put away" to be the same as being divorced. It is not only beyond belief that a gospel preacher would make this argument, but it also goes against marriage laws in our own nation and throughout the entire civilized world. And with this distorted explanation they feel they have answered the conundrums (those we have discussed) with which their doctrine is faced, and they continue to stand behind their traditional beliefs and practices.
Second, even though it is abundantly clear to whom Paul was addressing when he spoke to the "loosed," some insist that those "loosed from a wife" and who "do not sin if they marry" is only applicable to widows and virgins. As I write this, I'm bewildered in trying to answer the question in my own mind as to which of the above arguments that I have brought to light are the most illogical and absurd. It brings to my mind the song "How Bizarre!"
|
