By Kevin S. Gull
.
The subject of divorce is one that is with us on every hand in Western civilization. If it is not affecting your family or connections, it is affecting your classmates, co-workers and neighbors. As believers, it is impossible to evangelize whether in children's work or in gospel outreach, without meeting the inhabitants of a broken marriage. Some mission fields do not have the divorce problem as the natives have abandoned marriage and have embraced common-law relationships. When the gospel reaches this latter group they marry who they will and their past is swept aside. Those that honored the law of creation and creation's God as they understood them, are held in disrespect when the marriage breaks up. Upon conversion, they are expected to stay single and celibate as long as their former partner is living. In some gatherings even this is not acceptable to be part of the fellowship. Tragically, this strange doctrine has found its place among believers seeking to meet according to Biblical New Testament church order.
.
Scriptural marriage consists of 5 things:
§ a vow before God
§ a vow before men
§ a vow to one another
§ a sexual union
§ a legal contract
.
It takes two parties to uphold all five points. One cannot have a marriage with one's self. A sexual relationship outside of marriage breaks the first four. By claiming that a "mystical one flesh union" always exists, the innocent party is rendered the unseen, unwilling lifetime partner to illicit sexual unions. Nowhere is this taught in Scripture.
Where repentance and reconciliation is rejected by the guilty party, the innocent can sever the legal contract by divorce if the straying partner hasn't already. That is the plain teaching of the Lord's Exception in chapters 5 and 19 of Matthew.
.
To study this subject carefully and prayerfully, one must examine:
A.) The character and righteous justice of God
B.) God's purpose for marriage and the effects of sin on the persons involved
C.) Moses' words, the prophets' words, Jesus' words and Paul's words on marriage
D.) The history and legacy of assemblies planted and fed by early brethren who taught the validity of scriptural divorce and remarriage
.
A principle of Scriptural interpretation is, "If the first turn is a wrong turn, then all other turns afterward are wrong as well."
.
One example of the first wrong turn leading to subsequent error is the Watchtower slave who denies the deity of Christ because he cannot allow the possibility of the Trinity. Once a person recognizes that a marriage can be dissolved according to Scripture, twisting some Greek words into "perpetual adultery" for all second marriages "apart from death" is no longer possible.
.
My historical research supports both divorce and remarriage in keeping with the Lord's words through the Second century. Origen, the father of allegorical interpretation in the Third century, had himself castrated, taught celibacy and not surprisingly, denied remarriage after divorce for any reason. The Reformation brought the widespread study of Scripture and a rejection of marriage as a sacrament. Martin Bucer in the 1530's is referred to in Foxe's Book of Martyrs as recognizing the Lord's words regarding the validity of remarriage under certain circumstances. Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, Becon, Tyndale and Hooper were among those recognizing unfaithfulness as breaking the essence of marriage, commonly referred to as the Lord's Exception.
.
The Westminster Confession of 1646 codified what the reformers taught on marriage and the conditions that dissolved it. The Anglican Church was the dominant ecclesiastical power suppressing these Dissenters, and it had as its nominal head the King or Queen of England. The Anglican Church took the position of Rome after the reign of Mary I (Bloody Mary) and little was altered until well into the 20th century. Marriage in the Anglican Union is still regarded as a sacrament and therefore cannot be dissolved.
.
Lawrence Stone has exhaustively researched the topic of marriage and divorce in Scotland and England from the surviving documents from that era. In his scholarly books Road to Divorce; Broken Lives; Uncertain Unions and The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800, Stone discusses all aspects of British relationships.
.
One of the greatest myths is that the morality of the people was determined by divorce law. While Scotland
.
A further development was the Great Recovery of the Lord's Return, the recognition of a divine pattern for the gathering of believers and a place for the whole counsel of God. Those known as "Brethren" came to be revered in the evangelical world as "men of the Book." It will come as a shock to many readers of present day magazines and conference attendees, that the scholars of that movement (in contrast to English law), taught and practiced The Lord's Exception. From the 19th century, familiar names include J.N. Darby, Wm. Kelly, J.R. Caldwell, F.C. Bland, W.J. Grant, F.W. Grant and many others.
.
Donald Ross, one to whom many of us can trace our spiritual heritage, wrote an article in The Barley Cake in 1882 on marriage and divorce teaching The Lord's Exception. One of his fellow evangelists, Caleb J. Baker, tentmaker and designer of "The Two Roads and Two Destinies of Man" chart, was a divorced and remarried man, mightily used of God in the planting of assemblies in the Midwest. The publisher and evangelist John Ritchie labored with him. Donald Munro, Lorne McBain, Oswald MacLeod, Oliver Smith, Stephen Mick, Charles Spurgeon Summers and the vast majority of pioneers in the United States were of one mind on this matter.
.
Cyrus Iverson Scofield was one of the great motivators of Bible study and a divorced and remarried man that God continues to use through his writings. Other well known Bible scholars that recognized remarriage for the innocent and in most cases for the abandoned include: W.E. Vine M.A., Wm. Hoste M.A., Wm. Rodgers, W.R. Lewis, C.F. Hogg, J.B. Watson, Harry Ironside, Albert McShane, Sidney Maxwell, Norman Crawford, Wm. MacDonald, D.L. Norbie, David Gilliland, Charles Ryrie, John MacArthur and the overwhelming majority of teachers and evangelists in North America.
.
The advent of the no-divorce and no remarriage for any cause theory seems to have surfaced among assemblies after the abdication and marriage of King Edward VIII to divorcee Wallis Simpson in 1936. This author was unable to find any no-divorce articles in assembly publications prior to the 1950's.
.
There are elders, evangelists, Bible teachers, missionaries and Sunday school teachers doing a work for God in the present day who were the victims of divorce and the beneficiaries of a remarriage. There are the guilty parties saved by grace in new unions, forgiven and following the Lord in gathering to His Name. Assemblies with such believers are often flourishing with active gospel outreach. No such evidence of the Spirit being hindered by what some British "Brethren" term "perpetual adultery."
.
1.) A series of articles on "Abominations" was printed some years ago in Words and Season, now defunct. One of them stated, "Divorce is an abomination," citing Deut. 24:4 as saying something it does not say. In fact, when Deut. 24:4 uses the word "abomination," it is referring to the restoration of the relationship between the first husband and the wife he divorced. The marriage was never to be restored after divorce occurred. Such sloppy reading and teaching has no place among scriptural assembly pulpits or magazines.
.
2.) Among many respected brethren from the U.K., whose ministry otherwise we appreciate, is the failure to confront the sin of unfaithfulness by one partner which invariably has occurred long before a believer is a party to divorce. A respected American teacher has commented on how poorly the U.K. brethren understand the divorce issue in North American assemblies. Often in these cases an unbelieving partner has divorced a believing partner and has moved on to other sexual unions, leaving a broken home, troubled children and an innocent party desiring companionship.
.
The issue of sexual immorality within a marriage union is not restricted merely to the unsaved. Married believers can also commit fornication, and are also able to stray from their spouse. The reconciliation of two believers within a tarnished marriage is essential to the future of the home and the testimony of the assembly. Where one professing party goes away with no interest in resolution, in time the faithful believer may remarry.
.
3.) Most present day U.K. brethren teach that nothing but death breaks a marriage union. Albert McShane in one of his last conference addresses points out, "Moses didn't say that, Jesus didn't say that and Paul didn't say that."
.
Both Matt. 19:6 and Mark 10:9 say "Let not man put asunder," not "Man cannot put asunder." The Gospel Tract Publications book by eight authors entitled What God Hath Joined is committed to that misrepresentation of God's Word. GTP has a long history of printing articles and booklets contrary to the Lord's Exception. "…but their witness agreed not together." (Mark 14:56)
.
If nothing but death breaks a marriage union as the two GTP books Modern Trends in Morality and What God Hath Joined claim, then many people are legally joined to partners in unions God doesn't recognize.
.
For example: Mr. A's wife, Mrs. A, divorces him by the laws of Scotland and marries Mr. B. Later Mrs. A divorces Mr. B. If Mrs. A. is still in a "one flesh" union with Mr. A., her marriage and divorce from Mr. B. never existed. To be consistent, Mr. B. should be free to marry in the Lord as his marriage to Mrs. A wasn't real in the eyes of God. This practical example shows the absurdity of teaching of "perpetual adultery." See John 4.
.
The GTP books assert that no amount of adulterous immorality, sodomy or other perversion affects the marriage bond. This reduces marriage to merely a legal contract/ceremony which by default sanctions all kinds of wicked deeds. Claiming to uphold the "sanctity of marriage" in a situation where anything goes and using the term "holy matrimony" is totally removed from the righteous character of God and His divine standard.
.
4.) A person divorced according to the Lord's words and remarried has only one spouse in keeping with the instruction given in I Timothy 3. Deut 24:3 "her former husband" and Hosea 2:2 "she is not my wife" show that divorce ends the marriage.
.
5.) The Lord's Exception is clearly portrayed in Matthew 19:9, "…whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery." Divorcing one's spouse for sexual unfaithfulness and marrying another is the Lord's Exception to a lifelong marriage.
.
The GTP books teach that fornication is restricted to intercourse with another man during the betrothal. This is not borne out by the context of Matthew chapters 5 and 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16. Why is moral sin during the betrothal so serious that a relationship should be severed, but none committed after marriage has any impact on the marriage bond?
.
According to Alfred Edersheim on page 137 of his book Sketches of Jewish Social Life:
"From the moment of her betrothal a woman was treated as if she were actually married. The union could not be dissolved except by regular divorce; breach of faithfulness was regarded as adultery…"
.
The question is often asked: If Jesus meant adultery when speaking in Matt. 5 and Matt. 19, why did he say "fornication" if he did not refer to pre-marital intercourse? The answer is that all sexual unfaithfulness is contrary to the laws of God and the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, homosexuality and lesbianism are not referred to as adultery even when committed by a married person. The word "fornication" includes adultery, but the word "adultery" does not include all aspects of fornication.
.
6.) Some U.K. teachers claim the Lord's Exception is only in Matthew to cover Joseph's actions towards Mary prior to the Lord's birth and has no validity today. However, the disciples' response in Matt. 19:10 shows the future sense of what Jesus taught. The Law of Context is the first law of interpretation.
.
"If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense."
.
The immaculate conception of Jesus was a once in eternity event for bringing God the Son into the world as the Perfect Man. Yet the marriage of Joseph and Mary without sexual relations (Matt. 1:25) until after the birth of Jesus is twisted into a proof text by the authors of the GTP publications that intimacy is not a necessary part of a one flesh union.
.
From the Law of Moses, it is plain that unconsummated marriages were to be avoided and should have been unknown among the children of Israel. "And what man is there who hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her."(Deut. 20:7) "When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business, but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife whom he hath taken."(Deut. 24:5)
.
In Jewish society, the marriage was to be consummated in the nuptial tent during the marriage festivities and the blood on the cloth constituted the evidence of virginity (Deut. 22:13-21). In the marriage of Mary and Joseph, there would have been no public display of the nuptial cloth and perhaps no public marriage feast. In his book Sketches of Jewish Social Life, Alfred Edersheim points out that the marriages of virgins were scheduled on Wednesday afternoons as the Sanhedrim met on Thursdays. Any claims of unchastity would be dealt with then. On the other hand, the marriage of a widow was celebrated on Thursday afternoon, which left three days of the week for "rejoicing with her."
.
Paul tells us in I Cor. 7:2 "let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband…" The same passage teaches regular intimacy to stay connected. Proverbs 5:18 "…let her breasts satisfy thee at all times, and be thou ravished always with her love." In Matt. 19:10-12 there are those believers who are not called to marriage or those who have no desire for it. Paul addresses the rest of the Christian population in I Cor. 7:9 "… let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn."
.
In What God Hath Joined, Brian Currie further corrupts the concept of intimacy in a marriage by using the example of Potiphar. He is described in Gen. 37 and 39 as an officer of Pharaoh; the word "officer" meaning "eunuch" in the Hebrew. Currie attempts to point out that because a eunuch was in a marriage, therefore sexual intimacy is not necessary for a "one flesh" union. Potiphar was a heathen in a perversion of what a marriage was supposed to be. The result was a desperate, unsatisfied wife wanting the servant, Joseph. Potiphar likely didn't enter the marriage as a eunuch but allowed himself to be neutered in order to get higher rank in the courts of Pharaoh as was a custom in that day. The concept of becoming a eunuch was not in God's mind for His people. "He who is wounded in the stones…shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deut. 23:1) It is a sad time when Bible teachers propagate such error to the detriment of the flock.
.
The centerpiece of Dr. McBride's book Modern Trends in Morality is his novel interpretation of Deut. 24:1. McBride teaches that divorce occurs only when a marriage has not been consummated. He argues that in Deut. 24, the marriage is never consummated as the bride has her menstrual flow on the wedding night and the groom is prohibited from intercourse by Lev. 20:18. In his impatience, he is permitted to dismiss her. He claims that the phrase "and it come to pass" represents a very brief time interval, something the other OT uses of this phrase do not support. Such spurious manipulation of the passage breaks down when the law permits her second husband to divorce her as well because he "hates her." (Deut. 24:4)
.
7.) Another theory claims that Joseph putting Mary away privately (Matt 1:19) is a gentle alternative to punishing supposed moral sin by stoning. This positions Deut. 22 as a route for the "hard" husband, and Deut. 24 is presented as a way for a wronged husband to express God's benevolent alternative. This presents a bill of divorcement as an alternative to stoning and twists Deut. 24 to insinuate that divorce can only mean hidden sin on the part of the wife.
.
8.) In the words of the Lord Himself in both Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 the word marry (gameo) shows a second marriage even when the marriage has a sinful beginning. The same word is used in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18.
No exception is given in Luke because Jesus is directing His word toward the Pharisees (v.14) "who were covetous" so the exception is not emphasized. Mark 10 tells us the provision in Deut. 24 was because of the hardness of men's hearts- they put their spouses away for causes less than moral sin. This is what the Lord is now abrogating. In John 4:18, the Lord is pointing out the woman's great sins: Five husbands and one paramour. NOT one husband and five paramours as mathematician John Heading claims in What the Bible Teaches-John. Does the Lord not mean what He says?
.
9.) Paul tells us in Romans 7:2 and I Cor. 7:39, "For the woman who hath an husband is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth…" Recently the world's wealthiest golfer was found to have 13 mistresses he had sex with on regular schedules and a young wife and two small children at home. Where are the great Bible scholars on this one? "You… pass over justice and the love of God!" (Luke 11:39-52) "Thy word is truth from the beginning and every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth forever." Psalms 119:160
.
"The children of this age are in their generation wiser than the sons of light," (Luke 16:8). But what does the law say? Exodus 21:10-11 the first wife is still to get food, raiment and intimacy or she is free to go.
.
William Heth, co-author of Jesus and Divorce, publicly repudiated his book on Moody Radio and in The Wall Street Journal, because his conclusion did not satisfy Exodus 21. (It is encouraging that through studying the Word of God, a man can have revealed to him the error of wrong teachings.) Numbers 5 teaches divine judgment for unfaithfulness. Exodus 20 teaches against adultery. Leviticus 18 and 20 teaches against incest, adultery, homosexuality and bestiality. Deut. 22 teaches the punishment of the guilty, not the innocent. Contrary to what atrocious, erroneous teachings in What God Hath Joined, Trends in Modern Morality and other publications claim, most broken marriages involve a morally innocent party. Since God gives his moral basis in and from the Law, the Law itself affirms that the innocent party is always free to remarry. When does God's perfect justice change to suit specific circumstances? "I am the Lord, I change not." If God protected in the day of the law, certainly he protects in the day of grace.
.
10.) The purpose of marriage is comprised of several things: companionship, intimacy, and procreation.
.
The importance of companionship is found in Gen. 2:18 "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help fit for him."
.
The importance, joy and necessity of intimacy are explained in detail in the Song of Solomon. The GTP books talk about the "creational" nature of marriage, yet they teach that intimacy is not necessary to a marriage union; therefore sexual unfaithfulness cannot affect the "unbreakable" bond.
.
Procreation is a natural product of sexual intimacy. How can you have procreation without sexual intimacy? "Be fruitful and multiply..." (Gen. 1:28)
.
11.) In its ideal form, marriage shows the relationship between Christ and His Church. Teachers of the no-divorce view twist this truth to support their doctrine. They say that because the relationship between Christ and the Church can never be severed, the relationship between man and wife can never be severed. But marriage is only a type. Just as a blemished lamb could not represent Christ, an unfaithful husband cannot represent Christ, nor can an unfaithful wife depict Christ's chaste Bride, the Church.
.
Furthermore, the law of the land, the government of the assembly and the Scriptures recognize marriages between people who are no longer virgins upon entering their first marriage union. To be consistent, these erroneous teachers must believe that a person who comes to his first marriage unchaste cannot really be married because equally he cannot represent Christ nor can an unchaste woman represent the Church.
.
12.) A strange doctrine which the author encountered during his research was that if one believes in remarriage apart from death, one cannot consistently believe in the restoration of Israel. All but the Amillennial Reformed Calvinists recognize the future restoration of a believing remnant of the nation of Israel to the LORD. No person living on this sinful Earth has any future assurance of a restoration of an unfaithful partner to a marriage relationship. Taking the Lord's Exception for unfaithfulness and remarrying in no way denies that such a believer does not hold the truths of Zechariah 9:9 which shows the promised return of Israel to its God.
.
13.) The notion that those loosed from a wife in I Cor. 7:27 were widowers makes a mockery of the context. "Seek not to be loosed," then means don't kill your wife.
.
Another error is that someone who is "loosed" has never been married. In the 42 times that "luo" (3089) is used in the NT, all involve something bound, intact or whole in its previous state- not single as many U.K. brethren imply. Nor can it mean engaged, for the breaking of an engagement would require divorce in that culture. The only sensible interpretation is a man freed from a previous marriage union.
.
§ Every society on earth recognizes that a virgin woman is free to marry. So, in I Cor. 7:28, when Paul says, "… if thou marry, thou hast not sinned," he is addressing a particular issue beyond a first-time marriage.
§ In verse 11, two believers are to be reconciled to one another, and until then, are told to remain as they are. There is no question of moral sin or unfaithfulness in I Cor. 7:10-11.
§ In verse 15, "… but if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases." There is no other bond mentioned in I Cor. 7 apart from the marriage bond. For an abandoned believer to wait the rest of life for the return of an unfaithful, unbelieving partner is not a requirement for marriage as described in Scripture.
.
14.) The issue for all elders, teachers, workers and, most importantly, believers in these difficulties themselves, is that God, not Moses, sanctioned divorce; Jesus taught an exception to the permanence of marriage: unfaithfulness; and God's divine law teaches justice and righteousness.
.
One cannot read Matt. 5 and teach that some new doctrine of Jesus requires the toleration of a lifetime violation of a marriage union. The moral standards of God are unchanging. "Things written aforetime" (Romans 15:4) support the moral authority of the Law. At least 15 references to the Law and the commandment occur in Romans 7 by verse 14.
.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:17-18)
.
The practical application of this can be seen in our world today.
§ The aboriginal girl married to her blood uncle by the laws of her tribe whether in Australia or Canada has the same protection of the Word of God as anyone in an assembly in Iowa and can be divorced and is free to remarry.
§ The Fundamentalist Mormon girl escaping from a plural marriage and any other unjust union has the righteous character of God to free her.
§ The women or men in assemblies in North America or Australia can be freed from a marriage vow when their spouse goes out as a homosexual.
.
In Deut. 22:6-7 the Lord cares about the birds in the nest, but some brethren make legalistic sanctimonious pronouncements about believers' broken homes and claim they are keeping the assemblies pure. "Behind every heresy is a pious man."
.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob delivered to his chosen people ordinances for their health and sanitation. In Numbers 31:18-19 and Deut. 21:11-14, provision was made to take wives of the virgin captives. Today, we live in a medically enlightened world where sexually transmitted diseases are known to exist in and be transmitted by people with multiple intimate partners. Preachers condemn smoking as it is a danger to one's temple, yet their doctrines bind people to morally unfaithful partners. Legalism and outward form are more important to these men than the realities they foist upon their followers, and of course, their teachings are not in line with the teachings or character of God.
.
15.) The issue, brethren, is not the absurd example of couples wife-swapping in an assembly and how to recognize new marriages when they occur. For genuine believers, doing such a thing without God's judgment upon them is a divinely mathematical impossibility. The sin of fornication in I Cor. 5 would have occurred long before any new marriages. Someone, if truly born from above, would be touched by the hand of God, so such a matter would not produce two new unions.
.
16.) Many marriage partners are physically, emotionally, financially and mentally abused by their spouses. The offending spouse may not be sexually unfaithful, but may withhold intimacy and companionship in the same dwelling. He or she may be violent from temperament, drugs or alcohol and may be a risk to the spouse and the children. The abuse may take the form of taunting or threats. The victim may be forced into sexual acts with a third party.
.
Several respondents to a previous questionnaire told this author that all that was needed to be known regarding marriage was found in Gen. 2 and the latter part of Eph. 5. One cannot read those passages and find any similarities with what many married people experience in the conditions I've described. One cannot read Heth and Wenham's Jesus and Divorce or the two GTP books for any Biblical solutions. Wise brethren and sisters would counsel folks in these unsafe environments that they are free to leave their abusive spouse and provide safe havens for themselves and their children. Getting a legal divorce to protect them from the abuser has been a plan of action advised by wise elders.
.
17.) Many believers mention their years of happy marriage and any decent person, especially a fellow believer, can appreciate that. Now my brother was in various branches of the U.S. Army for 20 years. He even trained some that died in battle, yet he never was in combat. When I was 13, I worked with a door gunner back from Vietnam, his eyes as big as saucers with a wild stare. I would ask him about it, he wouldn't talk, just shake his head. The memories were just too vivid.
.
That is the difference between the marriage experts and those who have experienced unfaithful partners. Those who have experienced this in their families have forgotten more than such "experts" will ever know. They know nothing of an unfaithful spouse bringing syphillis or AIDS home to their partner. They have no clue about children being hurt or abused by some paramour or being unable to locate or protect their children.
.
.
.
Right doctrine will challenge and strengthen the saints. Believers and unbelievers in marital breakups due to sin will be comforted. Assemblies will be able to intelligently minister to the various needs of the remarried and the needs of their families. New unions and homes can be used for God and of God, and can contribute to the local testimony; the women as Sunday school teachers and helps to other believers and the men as responsible teachers, elders and evangelists.
.
The reality of what people experience in the world today has an answer in both God's Word and His character.
No comments:
Post a Comment