Establishing Authority [4]
For the past few weeks, we have considered the matter of how to properly establish authority, noting the two categories in which all commands may be found [generic and specific], the means by which we may know God's will on any matter [direct commands or statements, divinely-approved examples, and necessary inference], and how to act when God says nothing. Again, I must emphasize that these are all means by which our Lord and His apostles taught the truths of God's will to others, and are the only available means of knowing what God would have us to do. Some sincerely religious people, not understanding these things or ignoring them altogether, are teaching and practicing error and will stand condemned in the final judgment for disobeying the will of God, and presuming to act where God did not direct them to do so. Let us be reminded that going beyond the will of God is just as much sin as falling short.
This week, I would like to take these principles of Bible study and apply them to a particular subject, and we will do the same thing next week, but on a different subject. Each one of these topics has been a cause of much division and contention among brethren, and often because some have either forgotten these principles, or are willfully ignoring and misusing them. Let's try to set the record straight and be honest with the Scriptures, shall we?
Marriage And Divorce. (Matt. 19:1-9; 5:32; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7) I believe there are more views on God's law of marriage and divorce than there are verses that mention it, but such should not be the case. Common errors that are taught and accepted among brethren include the teaching that the sinner is not amenable to Christ's words on marriage and divorce [but, curiously, amenable to all other words of His]; a subsequent error that says baptism 'sanctifies' even adulterous marriages; a redefinition of adultery to simply mean 'covenant-breaking'; a teaching that divorce ends all marriages so both are free to remarry regardless of the cause for the divorce; a teaching that a woman put away not for the cause of fornication may later 'put away' her ex-husband if he commits adultery after the fact of the divorce; the teaching that a man may put away his wife if she 'hinders' his service to God [which implies an entirely arbitrary judgment]; and the teaching that an abandoned spouse is free to divorce and remarry [if the one who abandoned them is an unbeliever]. I am sure there are many more errors being propagated on this subject, but time and space do not permit. [I wrote a lengthy series of articles on this subject a couple of years ago that addressed many of these errors.] Let us address the latest error that is being propagated, though: the false doctrine of post-divorce divorce.
ERROR 1: If unlawful [not approved by God; not for fornication] civil divorces determine when one is divorced, then you must believe that civil law supersedes God's law. Wrong! This is merely an attempt to confuse the real issue, and does not properly address the issue of the possibility of post-divorce divorce. Jesus did not specify the means of the divorce in any context, so the rule of authority states that we cannot bind one means of procuring a divorce and cannot exclude another. That being true, when Jesus mentions divorce, it must include all means, including the civil procedure. To deny this, one would have to deny the logic of properly establishing authority, particularly on the matter of generic and specific commands. Are we willing to suspend the rules on just this matter, or will we do this for all discussions of truth?
The fact is, unlawful marriages in no way supersede God's law, for one who divorces for some reason other than the one that God allows has sinned [transgression of law, 1 John 3:4] and is named as guilty [an adulterer, Matt. 19:9]. While a man may transgress a law of God, his actions never 'supersede' it. Each and every man who transgresses a law of God is guilty of sin. God's law still stands!
ERROR 2: The 'innocent spouse' retains her God given right to put away her guilty mate, regardless of the actions of her ungodly mate. Wrong again! This argument sounds nice, but it has no Scripture to back it up. In fact, Jesus specifically deals with a woman who has been put away unlawfully, and He says she is guilty of adultery when she remarries another (Matt. 5:32; 19:9b). Note well that Jesus mentioned nothing about her [some time later after she has already been put away] 'putting away' the one who put her away. That idea is a mere contrivance of those who seek to prop up this defenseless position. Again, will we suspend the rules of properly establishing authority for just this matter, or are we going to suspend the rules for all discussions of truth? If Jesus said nothing about such a scenario, can we presume to teach that God will approve? If anything, Jesus answered this false idea when He said, "and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." She did not retain a right to put away, for Jesus said any remarriage to another would constitute adultery.
ERROR 3: The woman who has been unlawfully put away is found in the "whosoever" of Matthew 19:9a. Wrong again! This is a desperate and pitiful attempt to put the woman who has already been put away into a place where she is not found, just so they can finish out the rest of the sentence and apply it to her. The woman is in Matthew 19:9a, just not where they want her to be! According to Jesus, the woman who has been put away unlawfully is found in the words "his wife" (19:9a), and she is the one He later described as "her who is divorced" (19:9b) - but she is not in the "whosoever" of Matthew 19:9a. Remember, the Pharisees were asking if a man could put away his wife for just any cause. From the beginning of their question all the way through the entire context, the issue is whether or not a man may put away his wife, indicating the two are still married. Nowhere in this passage [or any other] is it ever stated, nowhere is there an example, and nowhere is there any necessary inference that a divorce has already occurred when Jesus gave His answer to their question. Some men have been so presumptuous to say they "know for a fact" that Jesus gives this woman an inalienable right to put away her ungodly mate, but such cannot be deduced from an honest examination of the Scripture. It's as if those who say she is included in the "whosoever" would have Jesus saying the following:
"And I say to you, whatsoever woman who has been put away not for fornication puts away her husband who already put her away, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
Now compare that with what Jesus really said: "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
Only a dishonest heart or one without the mental capacity to tell up from down could construe the words of Jesus to be saying the same thing as the previous statement. Let us rightly divide the word of truth that we may present ourselves acceptable to God (2 Tim. 2:15), and let us not seek the praise of men in this matter. Souls are at stake!
ERROR 4: There is only one "putting away" in this scenario: one for each spouse. I'm no math genius, but even I can add. One putting away plus one putting away equals two putting aways. [Or, to make it simple: 1+1=2.] Additionally, every example of the word translated as divorce [Gk. apoluo] precludes a second putting away. Every time! We cannot rely on human reasoning to wiggle out of this one. The usage of the word in the New Testament does not allow for a second putting
away and, furthermore, it cannot even be implied from the context of Matt. 19:1-9.
Next week, we will consider issues regarding the work of the local church.
-- Steven Harper