Views: 7<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n To shallow Bible students, calling Jesus Christ \u201cthe great controversialist\u201d might appear misguided, if not blasphemous. They would propose, contrariwise, that He is the source of peace, rather than of conflict, as controversialist <\/em>implies. No serious Bible student will deny Jesus\u2019 close linkage with peace. Isaiah titled Him \u201cPrince of Peace\u201d seven centuries before He was born (9:6).1<\/sup> The angels proclaimed \u201cpeace on earth\u201d at His birth (Luke 2:14). He is the \u201cLord of peace\u201d (2 The. 3:16), and King Jesus reigns over a kingdom of peace (Rom. 14:17), which He governs by the \u201cgospel of peace\u201d (Eph. 6:15). He pronounces a blessing upon those who seek to make and keep peace (Mat. 5:9). His disciples are to live at peace with all men, as much as possible (Rom. 12:18). Jesus\u2019 coming resulted in peace between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14\u201315). All of these truths have their root in one great principle: \u201cFor God is not a God of confusion, but of peace\u201d (1 Cor. 14:33).<\/span><\/p>\n Even a simpleton could hardly fail to understand that God\u2019s way is one that seeks peace among all men and between mankind and Himself. One of the most compelling attractions of Heaven is the promise of its atmosphere of perfect, everlasting peace. However, if the peace-related facet of Jesus\u2019 nature and of His purpose for coming into our time-bound sphere is all one sees in the Son of God, He has either quit reading too soon in the Sacred Text, or He has absorbed and\/or read portions of it very selectively.<\/span><\/p>\n Besides His mission of peace, the Lord also warned that He came to \u201ccast fire upon the earth\u201d and division rather than peace (Luke 12:49, 51). When Jesus first commissioned the apostles, they were to preach the soon-to-come kingdom and to spread peace (Mat. 10:7, 13), but not peace at any price. He also cautioned them: \u201cThink not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword\u201d (v. 34). (His statement does not contradict the peace-filled motivation of His work, but His obvious meaning is, \u201cThink not that I came only <\/strong>to send peace…\u201d). They would thereafter see this principle at work continually in their Master\u2019s frequent controversies with both religious and civil authorities of the time. His message was one of peace for those wise enough to imbibe it, but one of conflict for those who rejected it. The Lord never once shrank from nor apologized for the controversy His Word engendered, nor may His disciples.<\/span><\/p>\n The fact that He did not run from truth-stirred controversy does not indicate that He either sought it or enjoyed it (nor do those today who are \u201cset for the defence of the gospel\u201d [Phi. 1:16]). He rather confronted error as a matter of duty in defense\u2014rather than sacrifice\u2014of principle, truth, and righteousness. The Lord must shake His head in dismay as He observes the mania over \u201cconflict resolution\u201d\u2014one of the curses of our time. Liberals in the church are so fascinated with it they have created departments in their universities (e.g., Pepperdine University, Abilene Christian University) dedicated to this how-to-be-a-successful-compromiser <\/em>field. They ought to be good at it, for they have been practicing it with error for several decades. They are basically training students in the fine art of the way to \u201cgo along in order to get along.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This mentality in our State Department in Washington, D.C., seems willing to negotiate away almost any principle (including basic Constitutional tenets)\u2014anything to avoid conflict with even the most lawless and threatening nations. It has seriously weakened America\u2019s position of world leadership. Jesus undeniably did not preach His Word or do His work among men with the infamous \u201cRodney King\u201d attitude: \u201cCan\u2019t we all just get along?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 Confrontation of the Pharisees<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Among the subjects upon which the Lord confronted enemies of the Truth was that of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus issued some basic principles regarding this subject:<\/span><\/p>\n But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery\u201d (Mat. 5:32).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It may be that this statement sparked discussion among the Pharisees, prompting them to approach Jesus later with some questions about the subject:<\/span><\/p>\n And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery (Mat. 19:3\u20139).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is certain that these querists were not sincerely seeking Truth, but they apparently sought to discredit Jesus before the multitudes by arraying His doctrine against that of Moses, their revered lawgiver (v. 7). Their devious questions resulted in Jesus\u2019 reproof and rebuke of the Pharisees because of their erroneous views regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage.<\/span><\/p>\n The guile-laden questions of the Pharisees indicate their liberal attitude toward divorce and remarriage, implying that they believed it was <\/strong>lawful, that is, permissible by God\u2019s law. Were the Lord on earth today, their initial question would still be altogether appropriate because it reflects the prevalent view in our nation, if not the whole world, namely, that divorce and remarriage are acceptable on almost any pretext. It is little better among a host of our brethren. Over the past few decades they have devised a dozen or more corrupt (as they are clever) \u201cloopholes\u201d in an effort to circumvent Jesus\u2019 statement of Divine law in Matthew 9:3\u2013 12.2<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n We need not wish Him here in person in order to gain His answer to this question. His definitive answer in about A.D. 30 is the same one He would give now, so let us examine it for our edification and education.<\/span><\/p>\n Analysis of Jesus\u2019 Answer to the Pharisees<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Lord\u2019s immediate answer to their question, \u201cIs it lawful…?\u201d strongly implies, \u201cNo, it is not lawful.\u201d In a later confrontation with the Sadducees, He answered their question about the resurrection with the sharp rebuke, \u201cYe do err, not knowing the scriptures…\u201d (Mat. 22:29). Similarly, His response to the Pharisees\u2019 Question is a rebuke of their ignorance: \u201cHave ye not read?\u201d (19:4). Had they read (and correctly applied) what God had said about the matter when He created the first man and woman, they would have known better than to ask their question.<\/span><\/p>\n Casual Divorce Amounts to Rejection of God\u2019s Law <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Jesus stated that casual and careless divorce is a violation of God\u2019s law because it rejects:<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus left no doubt in the minds of the scheming Pharisees, nor should there be any in our minds, about Divine law on divorce and remarriage.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 Boldly Asserted His Authority <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As earlier mentioned, the Pharisees\u2019 strategy was to place Jesus in conflict with Moses (or at least with one of the popular rabbinical interpreters of Moses), thereby discrediting Him with the multitude (vv. 7\u20138). Paraphrased, they responded to Him: \u201cYou say divorce is unlawful, but Moses commanded it. Whom should we follow?\u201d After identifying human rebellion (\u201chardness of heart\u201d) as the basis of Moses\u2019 concession to which they referred (Deu. 24:1\u20134), Jesus immediately took His stand upon God\u2019s law from the beginning, although it meant:<\/span><\/p>\n When we stand uncompromisingly upon the teaching of Christ on this issue, we find <\/strong><\/span>ourselves in almost the identical relationship toward comparable contemporaries, including many compromising brethren. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A Brief Analysis of Jesus\u2019 Exception <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n To the rule of lifetime marriage (v. 6), Jesus states an exception in verse 9, involving two elements: (1) The conditional right <\/strong>to divorce and remarry and (2) the only Scriptural condition <\/strong>upon which God allows such. By asking their question (i.e., \u201cMay I divorce my wife and marry another on any pretext?\u201d), the Pharisees apparently had selfish excuses in mind for doing so. This spirit prevails in our nation and has done so for decades.<\/span><\/p>\n It was not always so, however. Until the 1960s, divorce was almost universally stigmatized, and it was difficult to divorce one\u2019s mate apart from the stated cause of adultery. Then the liberal social engineers did their work. Legislators followed their lead in the early 1960s by liberalizing divorce laws, the multiplication of which has steadily discouraged lifelong marriage commitment. \u201cNo fault\u201d divorce is now almost universal. The \u201csexual revolution\u201d of the late 1960s and the \u201cWomen\u2019s Liberation\u201d movement of the 1970s strongly contributed to abandonment of and negativism toward the Biblical concept of marriage and the home. These developments so cheapened marriage that millions of couples have adopted long-standing Hollywood \u201cmorals\u201d and now shamelessly cohabit and breed, no more bothering to marry than brute beasts. Latest statistics indicate that almost fifty percent of babies are born to unmarried couples. Easy divorce and remarriage has led to a Why bother? <\/em>attitude toward it for the past few generations.<\/span><\/p>\n By contrast, Jesus gives the only Divinely authorized exception to lifetime marriage: fornication in one\u2019s spouse. Fornication <\/em>translates the Greek word porneia<\/em>, the \u201cumbrella\u201d Greek term for every sort of sexual impurity, including harlotry, homosexuality (both male and female), bestiality, and adultery. Divorcing one\u2019s mate for such behavior points to a basically un<\/strong>selfish reason\u2014not in order to take up with a new mate, but to protect one\u2019s own person and home from the corrupting influence of immorality. The Lord does not command <\/strong>divorce or remarriage in such cases, but He allows <\/strong>both divorce and <\/strong>remarriage of the innocent mate, or His words mean nothing.<\/span><\/p>\n Modern Attempts to Alter the Force of Jesus\u2019 Doctrine<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As mentioned above, liberals have by numerous crafty theories sought to circumvent the plain statement of Jesus on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. His teaching in this passage, either explicitly or implicitly, confronts all such false teachers and their errors. We now turn our attention to brief reviews of some of the subterfuges most frequently advanced.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cJesus\u2019 Teaching Applies Only to Christians\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n One of these contrivances seeks to limit the application of Jesus\u2019 doctrine only to Christians. Some assert that since Jesus\u2019 spoke these words to Jews (God\u2019s \u201ccovenant\u201d people at the time), they therefore now apply only to Christians (God\u2019s \u201ccovenant\u201d people since Calvary). The implication (if not the purpose) of this assertion (as absurd as it is baseless) is to allow men and women to divorce and remarry without limit before <\/strong>they obey the Gospel (i.e., become God\u2019s \u201ccovenant\u201d people) and then remain <\/strong>with their last-married mate. However, Jesus based His dogma on God\u2019s law governing marriage from the beginning <\/strong>of man\u2019s existence (v. 4 [Gen. 1:27]; v. 5 [Gen. 2:24]). He emphasized Deity\u2019s all-time, universal, fundamental principle for marriage: one <\/strong>man, one <\/strong>woman, joined by the one <\/strong>God to become one <\/strong>flesh for life (not <\/strong>one man joined to one man, one woman joined to one woman, or one woman or man joined to a goat, incidentally). Obviously, God\u2019s statements in Genesis 1 and 2 predated by many centuries the distinction He later made between Jew and Gentile by giving His covenant\/law to Israel through Moses.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus also indicated the universality of His teaching by applying it to \u201cwhosoever\u201d (Mat. 19: 9). There is no justification for limiting whosoever <\/em>unless (or to what extent) the Lord Himself limits it (which, incidentally, He does in v. 12). Any such limitation must be restricted solely to that which He sets. In His complementary statement (Mat. 5:31\u201332), Jesus used whosoever<\/em>twice and everyone <\/em>once to emphasize the universal application of His teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n Another forceful indication of the universality of Jesus\u2019 marriage doctrine in the context deserves more emphasis than it has received. The disciples obviously understood the import of Jesus\u2019 words and mildly complained at their perceived strictness (v. 10). Jesus responded, \u201cNot all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given\u201d (v. 11). In other words, whosoever <\/em>in verse 9 does have one exceptional class, which He proceeded to identify. The only <\/strong>ones Jesus excludes are eunuchs (those unable even to consummate a marriage)\u2014whether thus born, man-made, or self-made for the kingdom\u2019s sake (v. 12). Note who are not <\/strong>excepted: Neither Gentiles <\/strong>before the cross nor non-Christians <\/strong>since the cross (i.e., \u201cnon- covenant\u201d people). The Lord\u2019s teaching thus applies to all others <\/strong>but those He excepted, namely eunuchs; no one has the right to exclude any others<\/strong>. Whatever Jesus teaches in this passage thus applies to all mentally accountable human beings except eunuchs.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAdultery Does Not Refer to a Physical Act of Immorality\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Others would mitigate the force of Jesus\u2019 words by defining adultery <\/em>to mean merely repudiating the marriage contract rather than to sexual unfaithfulness to one\u2019s Scriptural mate. They argue that one can thereby abandon one\u2019s mate upon any selfish pretext and \u201crepent\u201d of so doing by merely saying, \u201cI\u2019m sorry for breaking up our marriage.\u201d Obviously, by this stratagem, they assert that one is then free to marry another. Just as obviously, this is the motive behind such an absurdity. Those who introduced this silliness should have been laughed to scorn. Instead, some have so feverishly sought some detour around the Lord\u2019s teaching that they have adopted it, seriously argued it (even in public debate), and have split churches over it. They have also made people feel comfortable in adulterous marriages, which will cause those thus deceived\u2014along with him who deceived them\u2014to be lost.<\/span><\/p>\n Admittedly, inspired writers used adultery <\/em>in a figurative sense. The prophets characterized Israel\u2019s idolatry and apostasy as spiritual \u201cadultery,\u201d but even in doing so they employed graphic descriptions of the literal, physical meaning of the term (Jer. 13:27; Eze. 16:25, 32; Hos. 2:2). Similarly, James uses adulteresses <\/em>figuratively to describe Christians who had been unfaithful to their spiritual \u201cHusband\u201d by their friendship with the world (Jam. 4:4). The Greek authorities universally attest that one cannot define the word adultery <\/em>or the act of adultery in connection with literal, physical marriage apart from unlawful sexual intercourse. While adultery demonstrates <\/strong>the Scriptural basis for divorce and remarriage, the immoral act itself constitutes <\/strong>the basis.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAdultery Is a One-time Sinful Act\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Another common ploy is the assertion that adultery in an unscriptural marriage is only a one-time act (i.e., the first act <\/strong>of copulation in the marriage), rather than a continuing behavior or state of being. Advocates then argue that those in unscriptural marriages are not thereafter committing or \u201cliving in adultery\u201d (they even allege that it is impossible to \u201clive in\u201d adultery). Thus they allege that they can continue in marital unions as long as they \u201crepent\u201d of (i.e., say they are sorry for) that initial act. This outlandish position reveals the desperation of some to mitigate the force of Jesus\u2019 teaching. Its advocates conveniently reserve this idea of \u201cnon-continuous\u201d sin for adultery alone.<\/span><\/p>\n First, note that committeth adultery <\/em>(twice stated) in Jesus\u2019 statement is a present tense form that conveys the idea of continuous or \u201clinear action,\u201d with the force of \u201cbegins and keeps on committing adultery.\u201d The adultery of Matthew 19:9 is thus a condition, a way of life, in which one is living; it is a forbidden union polluted by adultery<\/strong>. The only way to repent of an adulterous union is to sever it and cease the intimacy it involves. Further, Colossians 3:5\u20137 mentions \u201cfornication\u201d (which includes adultery) and other sins and then says that the Colossians had formerly \u201cwalked<\/strong>\u201d and \u201clived <\/strong>in these things\u201d (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9\u201311; Eph. 2:1\u20133; emph. DM). The Bible thus indeed speaks of \u201cliving in adultery.\u201d But some argue that the separation of unscripturally married partners is \u201cintractable\u201d (i.e., overly inconvenient, difficult). However, in light of Jesus\u2019 teaching (and of the eternal consequences of approaching the Judgment as an adulterer), living in\u2014remaining in<\/strong>\u2014an adulterous, unscriptural marriage is the \u201cintractable\u201d course.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe Guilty Mate Has the Right to Remarry\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As early as 1950, the late James D. Bales set forth the concept that the fornicating spouse has the right to remarry, and the late Gus Nichols stated his agreement with it in a lecture at Harding University in 1973 (Elkins, 406). On our first Annual Denton Lectures (1982), Lewis Hale affirmed the following in one of our Discussion Forums: \u201cThe guilty party in a divorce (i.e., the fornicator), has the Scriptural right to remarry.\u201d He wrote a book in 1974 advocating this position. These brethren assert that, if the marriage is dissolved for one mate (the innocent), it is must also be dissolved for both, and that if the dissolution allows one to remarry, it allows both to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n Champions of this contention fail to recognize the significance of Matthew 9:6: \u201cWhat therefore God <\/strong>hath joined together, let not man put asunder.\u201d Every Scriptural marriage therefore involves not only two, but three persons: (1) The man, (2) the woman, and (3) God. While the fornicator is indeed no longer bound to the mate who puts him away, he is nonetheless still bound to and by the law of God concerning divorce and remarriage. Jesus\u2019 statement in Matthew 19:9 specifies to whom He grants the right to remarry, namely, the innocent spouse.<\/span><\/p>\n If the guilty party has the same Scriptural right to remarry as the innocent one does, fornication is thus a sin that brings the sinner both pleasure and advantage. Again, if so, why did the Lord even bother to discuss the matter? <\/strong>His words actually imply a strong prohibition <\/strong>of remarriage for the fornicating spouse. A.T. Robertson, a recognized Baptist Greek scholar, commenting on Matthew 19:9, made this very point: \u201cJesus by implication, as in [Mat.] 5:31, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not the guilty one\u201d (25).<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cGod Recognizes Every Divorce and Marriage Sanctioned by Civil Law\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A cadre of otherwise conservative brethren has become rather vocal the last few years in their insistence that God honors and is bound by the decrees of civil courts in matters of divorce and marriage. Although the Lord stated that men did\/do not <\/strong>have the ability or the right to sunder a man and woman whom He has joined in marriage (Mat. 19:6b), advocates of this position assert, by implication, that men can <\/strong>indeed do so. The consequence of their contention is to deny an innocent spouse the Scriptural right to remarry, in spite of the fact that his\/her spouse has committed fornication\/adultery.<\/span><\/p>\n The following hypothetical (but not at all unrealistic) case brings the consequence of this position into focus:3<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Joe divorces Jane because he finds Mary more attractive (no fornication involved at this juncture). The civil divorce decree says that the marriage no longer exists, freeing Joe legally <\/strong>to marry Mary. But is Joe free Scripturally <\/strong>to marry Mary? In Matthew 19:9, the Lord, by implication, teaches that Joe and Jane are still married, although the civil-law divorce says that they are not. Would Joe\u2019s marriage to Mary be an adulterous marriage or a Divinely sanctioned one? If Joe and Jane were not <\/strong>still bound to one another by God\u2019s marriage law (in spite of the civil divorce decree), why would Joe\u2019s marriage to Mary constitute adultery\u2014adultery against Jane, in fact, whom he divorced without Scriptural cause (Mark 10:11)? Here we have a marriage (Joe to Mary) which men say is legal<\/strong>, but which God says is nonetheless forbidden<\/strong>\u2014because it constitutes adultery.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The foregoing case leads us to the one exception Jesus gave that can break the absolute permanency of a God-ordained marriage, apart from death (Rom. 7:2\u20133). That one exception is fornication. Now, let us revisit the case of Joe, Jane, and Mary:<\/span><\/p>\n Certainly, where civil laws exist that are in harmony with Divine laws (on MDR or any other subject), we must comply with them (Rom. 13:1\u20137; et al.). However, when the laws of men conflict with God\u2019s law, \u201cWe must obey God rather than men\u201d (Acts 5:29). Though well-meaning they may be, brethren who would deny Jane the right to divorce Joe are nonetheless implying that we must obey men <\/strong>rather than God<\/strong>. Their contention is basically one of \u201canti- ism\u201d\u2014forbidding that which God allows and binding where God has not bound.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit upon the apostles when He returned to the Father. Among other things, Jesus promised that the Spirit would \u201cguide them into all the truth\u201d (John 16:13). One of the implications of this promise is that Satan would never be able to invent a false doctrine that has not already been refuted in anticipation. This implication is as true for errors on marriage, divorce, and remarriage as it is for any other subject. Although<\/span>\u00a0men have invented many strange doctrines on this subject, the Lord, through His own words and through the words of the Spirit-inspired men, have answered them all.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus did not seek controversy, but He certainly never shrank from it when error and sin rose to challenge Him and the Truth. The occasion of His verbal fisticuffs concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage with the wicked and hypocritical Pharisees is a marvelous case in point. We will do well to remember John\u2019s apropos exhortation: \u201cHe that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked\u201d (1 John 2:6).<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n