|
Many great gospel preachers understand biblical hermeneutics and generally use it properly to learn and to teach. But some are not consistent—they do not follow the rules when studying and teaching on divorce and marriage. First, it seems that in the latter case many are not concerned with biblical harmony and what makes sense. They seem not to care how their teaching reflects on God, who is fair and just. Second, good hermeneutics requires that we study in the right chronological order, but this one is usually totally disregarded. God taught about marriage as far back as Adam and Eve. Later, the Law of Moses was given to regulate the people. It contained the divorce law, which was given to protect women, and God confirmed its definition and that it came from Him by using it Himself (Deut. 24:1, 2; Jer. 3:8). These laws (marriage and divorce) are timeless and continue to this day.
The last Old Testament prophet was Jesus. He was charged with dealing with Jews who had ceased to follow Moses' law and who had established their own doctrines and commandments (Matt. 15:9; Tit. 1:14). Since Jesus sought to bring the Jews back to the Law, and since the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him, the last thing He would want to do would be to attempt to contradict or change the Law in any way. To do so would obviously be viewed as sin and would have given the Jews reason to kill Him. Thus, the idea that Jesus taught contrary to Moses is untenable.
The place to start in studying divorce and marriage is the teaching of Moses. (This is self-evident because it was the focal point of the discussion Jesus had with Jewish leaders who sought to kill him.) It is clear that Moses' Law allowed the divorced woman "to go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:2). Some endeavor to force Moses' teaching to harmonize with the idea that Jesus taught that a divorce has to be "for fornication," but they fail. They attempt to show that the woman was "defiled" and suggest this means she was guilty of some sexual sin. But that term was applicable only to the man that first divorced her-he could not take her back after she married another man. If it meant something was wrong with her then it would have forbidden another man from marrying her. But the text speaks of another man's marrying her once the divorce was final. Therefore, "defiled" does not mean the woman sinned and was "ineligible" for marriage, as is commonly taught today. Thus, when traditional MDR teachers attempt to make Jesus' teaching harmonize with Moses' teaching, they are unsuccessful.
These same teachers sometimes assert that Moses taught that there must be a certain "reason" or justification for a divorce, and that the reason is the same as Jesus taught - "fornication." The argument stems from the comment about the first husband, if he found "some uncleanness in her." This assertion is made even though it is evident that "uncleanness" is not the same thing as fornication and is often used outside of sexual context. The whole argument is destroyed by the fact that the second husband's "reason" is that he "hate[s] her." Why would the second husband's "reason" (if one was actually required) be different from the first husband's? Evidently, they were basically the same and neither affected the woman’s right to marry. Thus, the idea that a divorce had to be for a certain reason to be seen "in God's eyes" as a divorce, is not supported by the divorce law God has given us. Instead, it must be admitted that the woman who received the certificate could marry. While it might be argued that "God was not pleased" unless the divorce was for the right reason, the above observation makes harmonizing Moses' teaching with the idea that Jesus taught that a divorce had to be for fornication in order to be a divorce, impossible. Someone might attempt to get around this conundrum by saying that "God allowed certain things with which he was not pleased." But this demonstrates the problem of failure to stay with good hermeneutics. If we employ good hermeneutics the only conclusion we can reach is that Moses taught that a divorce ends marriage and that Jesus did not contradict Moses' teaching.
Any serious study of divorce and marriage needs to follow chronology. One must first understand what Moses presented to God's people regarding divorce. Again, Moses' teaching is definitely applicable, "profitable for doctrine" (2 Tim. 3:15, 16), and important because it was the focal point of the discussions Jesus had with the Jewish leaders who sought to entrap him in His words. After Moses' teaching is understood, the next logical direction in which to proceed is to interpret Jesus' teachings. This is important because if one gets Jesus' principles wrong he will be inclined to try to force Paul's instructions to harmonize with what one THINKS Jesus taught.
It would be good if we could forget what we have heard and think we have learned and then study each of the following areas in the order given: Moses' teaching, Jesus' teachings, and Paul's teaching--and to study as if for the first time. Moses' teaching is the foundation for divorce, and the most important point to learn is that divorce ends marriage. Jesus' teaching was to Jews who had ceased to have respect for God and His law, including the law regarding divorce. They had many false notions and Jesus taught against these false notions-not against Moses' Law, which was/is God's Law. The proof of this is the fact that the Jews did not charge Jesus with contradicting Moses, but instead used trumped-up charges to kill Him. One false notion was that it was okay to divorce a wife. God never said it was okay to break a covenant with a faithful wife. He just gave a law whereby the woman, who would otherwise be merely put away, or sent away, and would not be free to marry another (which would be a "treacherous" act [Mal. 2:16] that would result in great hardship), would indeed be free to marry. Jesus actually condemned the practice of putting away but not divorcing according to God's command (Deut. 24:1, 2; Mk 10:3; Jer. 3:8). He even charged these men with "adultery against her" (an obvious non-sexual thing) when he explained that merely "putting away," when the reason for doing so was "fornication" (an illegal marriage), was an exception to his teaching that putting away would be the wrong thing to do. That's because ending the relationship in the case of fornication would be the right thing to do (See Matt. 14:3; 1 Cor. 5:1.)
If Christians who seek truth regarding the question "Who may marry?" were to first study Paul's teachings, they would have no problem seeing what he meant when he said to let every man and every woman have a spouse, to let the "unmarried" marry, and that those "loosed" do not sin if they marry (1 Cor. 7:2, 8, 9, 27, 28). But it is a fact that many errantly believe and teach that Jesus taught that unless a divorce is for adultery it is not a divorce "in God's eyes." (This is true even though "adultery" is not the word Jesus used.) Although Paul did not so much as hint that a divorce had to be for fornication to be a scriptural/legal divorce, many seem to be compelled to try to FORCE his teaching to harmonize with what they are told Jesus taught. But they are tasked with the problem of harmonizing what they think is Jesus' teaching with what Moses taught, for the idea that Jesus taught contrary to Moses is untenable-something for which no serious scholar has contended or would contend. Thus, after learning what Moses taught, one needs to then dispel these false notions about what Jesus taught before studying Paul's teachings. The clear admonitions of Paul (some of which are noted above) should serve to place doubt in the minds of those who think Jesus taught something other or different from Moses' teaching, which is that divorce ends marriage.
If good hermeneutics are used, one who wants truth as to what the Bible teaches will find it. The truth regarding divorce and marriage will be in perfect harmony and there will be no real conundrums: Moses' teachings, Jesus' teaching, and Paul's teachings will harmonize perfectly. The gist of Paul's instructions regarding this subject is not "celibacy" but the opposite-marriage, because of the need to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:2). The only reason for his suggesting that celibacy would be better was due to the "present distress," which had nothing to do with whether one has a right to marry. Paul's only instruction, regarding "eligibility" to marry, is that the male be a "man" and the female has reached "the flower of her age."
When one directs his study to the teaching of Jesus, the question to determine is whether he said a "divorced" woman commits adultery if she marries or merely that a "put away" woman commits adultery if she marries. Obviously, one can be "put away but not divorced" (my 280-page free book) according to the Law, and that would mean she would indeed commit adultery if she married. This makes perfect sense and allows the Bible to harmonize. (The big problem is, it contradicts tradition; and tradition is often more powerful than truth.) The important point to draw from this observation is that Jesus DIDN'T SAY a "DIVORCED" woman would commit adultery if she married. Thus, there is no foundation for the practice of imposing celibacy on those who have been divorced for some reason other than adultery. Once this is understood Paul's teachings will be seen to clearly support it-meaning there will be no need to take his teaching out of context or even try to harmonize what he said with something that is contrary to the gist of Moses' teachings, Jesus' teachings, and his (Paul's) teachings.
|
