Views: 1<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles\u00a0<\/b>page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Every other couple that says, \u201cI do,\u201d is later saying, \u201cI don\u2019t.\u201d The ratio is three out of five marriages ending in divorce in California. Divorce laws in America have been constantly undergoing liberalization since the 1960s, increasingly making of marriage anything but a life-long commitment. Most states have adopted \u201cno fault\u201d divorce laws. Marriage has been so cheapened by such developments that is has become a common practice for couples to cohabit without bothering to marry at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Cicero, the Roman poet, had the wisdom to observe in 78 BC that \u201cthe first bond of society is marriage, the next children, then the family.\u201d Bertrand Russell, an atheistic philosopher, observed more than 40 years ago that \u201cthe more civilized people become, the less capable they seem of lifelong happiness with one partner.\u201d While he probably meant it as a slap at Biblical morality, there is perhaps a sobering question raised by his observation: \u201cHave we become too \u2018civilized\u2019?\u201d Whatever broadly affects society will eventually affect the church, thus the Lord\u2019s church is increasingly feeling the effects of the marriage-family revolution in society. Tragically, instead of preaching and teaching the Truth on marriage, divorce, and remarriage and urging men and women to conform their lives to the inspired standard, some of our most able men are now propagating devilish, divisive, diversionary, and degenerate doctrines to excuse the violation of Divine Law on the subject.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0As there is now, so there was in Jesus\u2019 generation, a very liberal attitude toward divorce and remarriage. Such is indicated by the guile-laden question of the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3, \u201cIs it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?\u201d Were Jesus on earth today this question would surely be appropriate, correctly representing the prevailing view: divorce and remarriage are acceptable (or at least legal) on almost any pretext. We need not wish Him here, if to gain His answer to this question. The answer He clearly gave in AD 30 is the same He would give now. (Oh, the preciousness of infallible, inspired, objective Truth that changes not from age to age, person to person, or circumstance to circumstance!) In Matthew 19:3\u201312 we have the summary of God\u2019s perfect will for the marriage relationship and that which dissolves it in the eyes of God. The reader is encouraged to reread this passage. Jesus sets forth the Truth in literal terms, as opposed to figurative. It is stated as a categorical imperative, not as mere indefinite, or optional advice. All other New Testament passages on the subject must harmonize with it or our understanding of them is proved faulty.<\/span><\/p>\n Who Is Responsible, Amenable, to God\u2019s Law as Stated Here by Christ?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Jesus roots His teaching on this subject in God\u2019s Law governing marriage from the beginning of man\u2019s existence. In Matthew 19:4 He refers to \u201cthe beginning\u201d when man and woman were created (Gen. 1:27), and in verse 5 He quotes God\u2019s first statement of His will regarding marriage (Gen. 2:24). Notice that when God stated this law there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile. It was stated ages before God gave His covenant to Israel through Moses, thus there were no \u201ccovenant\u201d and \u201cnon-covenant\u201d people distinctions. This statement from Genesis is manifestly cited by Christ as God\u2019s all-time, universal, fundamental principle for marriage and the family: one man, one woman, joined by one God to become one flesh. Thus, it applied and applies to all men in all ages.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus also included all men in His answer to the Pharisees by using the word whosoever<\/em> (v. 9). There is no justification for limiting whosoever<\/em> to fewer than every person on earth unless Jesus Himself limits it in the context. The Lord obviously was not speaking only of those who were God\u2019s \u201ccovenant people\u201d in Matthew 18:4 when He said, \u201cWhosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.\u201d Neither was He limiting the term in Matthew 19:9. In the complementary passage (Mat. 5:31\u201332), he uses whosoever<\/em> twice and everyone<\/em> once to emphasize the universal application of His teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n James O. Baird proposes two questions to determine if one is responsible for any given law or command (And I Say unto You,<\/em> B & B Bookhouse, p. 66). First, are there prior conditions which the Scriptures require before this law or command can be acceptably obeyed? (e.g., before one can be baptized, he must believe; before one is \u201cqualified\u201d to partake of the Lord\u2019s supper one must be baptized, etc.). Second, is the law or command exclusive in its statement? (e.g., a woman cannot be an elder, a child cannot obey parents who are dead, etc.) If neither of these apply, then we must understand that we are under the given law or command. There are no prior conditions to obeying this law on marriage except being old enough to marry. All who are old enough, except eunuchs (which Jesus excludes in the context), are able to obey this law. Therefore, Baird correctly reasons, this teaching of Jesus applies to all who are able to be married. If the Lord had intended to make this a universal law, how could he have more clearly expressed it than by using the universal terms, whosoever<\/em> and everyone<\/em>?<\/span><\/p>\n This context contains a third indication of the universality of this teaching that has not received much emphasis, but that I judge to be of considerable force. First, notice that the\u00a0<\/span>disciples understood the obvious import of Jesus\u2019 words and mildly complained that the teaching was harsh: it would be better never to marry if marriage is so restricted, they reasoned (v. 10). Jesus responded by saying, \u201cNot all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given\u201d (v. 11). The force of this statement is that not all men are responsible to his law on marriage and divorce\u2014there is an excepted class. Who are excluded? Did Jesus exclude all Gentiles or \u201cnon-covenant\u201d people, as James D. Bales and others aver? Absolutely not!<\/strong> The only<\/strong> ones excluded by Christ are eunuchs, either natural-born, man-made, or self-made for the kingdom\u2019s sake. Jesus therefore indicated that His teaching on this subject applies to all others<\/strong> besides eunuchs; no man has the right to exclude any others. Whatever Jesus teaches in this passage it applies to Jew and Gentile, \u201ccovenant\u201d and \u201dnon-covenant\u201d people, yea to all men, both before and after they become Christians.<\/span><\/p>\n The Divine Rule Stated<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Lord conclusively answered, \u201cNo,\u201d to the Pharisees\u2019 question, \u201cIs it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?\u201d Lawful<\/em> in this question is a reference to God\u2019s Law. He offers several reasons why casual and careless divorce is unlawful to God.<\/span><\/p>\n The Divine Exception Stated<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The motive of the Pharisees\u2018 question was to place Jesus in conflict with Moses, or at least with one of the popular rabbinical interpretations of Moses, and thereby discredit Him (vv. 7\u20138). \u201cYou say divorce is unlawful, but Moses commanded it. Who should we follow?\u201d First, Jesus corrected them: \u201cMoses suffered<\/strong>, rather than commanded, divorce.\u201d Without batting an eye, Jesus pointed to human rebellion \u201chardness of heart\u201d as the basis of the Deuteronomic concession to which they referred. He then unhesitatingly took His stand with God\u2019s Law from the beginning, even though it meant:<\/span><\/p>\n When we stand with Jesus on this issue, we find ourselves in almost the identical relationship toward our comparable contemporaries.<\/span><\/p>\n The exception itself involved two elements (v. 9a). First<\/strong>, Jesus grants the right to divorce. Second<\/strong>, He states the Scriptural reason for the divorce that allows remarriage. The Pharisees had selfish excuses in mind for divorce in their question. Paraphrased, their question seems to ask: \u201cIs any excuse lawful to get rid of one\u2019s wife when one grows tired of her or finds someone he likes better?\u201d It is a matter of record from a survey of a few years ago that most divorces were filed after<\/strong> a new love was found. Our world is gripped by this very spirit to which our young people are daily exposed. Most people view marriage as a throw-away, expendable contract. By far, the prevailing view of those at the marriage altar is, \u201cIf this one doesn\u2019t work, I\u2019ll dispose of this partner and try again.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus, by contrast, gives the only<\/strong> Divinely authorized exception to lifetime marriage: fornication by one\u2019s spouse. We need to understand the meaning of fornication <\/em>(Mistakenly called \u201cfornific<\/em>ation\u201d at times). Fornication<\/em>translates the Greek word porneia<\/em>, the all-inclusive Koine Greek term for sexual impurity, including harlotry, homosexuality, bestiality, and adultery, whether by males or females. To divorce one\u2019s mate for this cause is fundamentally an unselfish<\/strong> reason. The one sinned against in such cases does not seek a divorce primarily for the purpose of remarrying or for freedom to seek another mate, but to maintain one\u2019s own moral purity and a home free of the corrupting influence of immorality. Note: Christ does not command <\/strong>divorce of the unchaste spouse, any more than He commands remarriage after such a divorce occurs. However, He does allow<\/strong> both (divorce and remarriage) on the grounds of fornication in one\u2019s spouse, or language means nothing at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Consequences of Ignoring Christ\u2019s Exception<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n To divorce and remarry for any cause besides fornication in one\u2019s mate makes one so doing guilty of adultery (v. 9b). To marry one who has been divorced by one\u2019s mate makes one an adulterer, furthermore (Mat 5:32; Luke 16:18). Some are now adding the exception clause to the last half of Matthew 19:9, making it mean that the spouse who was guilty of fornication has as much right to remarry as the innocent spouse who put him or her away because <\/strong>of his or her fornication. This is erroneous for several reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n While a marriage may be legally<\/strong> dissolved for almost any cause, freeing two people legally<\/strong> from each other, they are not thereby freed from God\u2019s Law on divorce and remarriage for various causes. It is at this point that the illustration of two mules hitched together and then one\u2019s being released, fails. It is argued that if one spouse is freed, then the other is automatically freed and is no longer bound. This completely ignores the obligation that both partners in a marriage have to God and His marriage law. A truer illustration would be of two mules hitched together, but one of them only kicks and will not work. Their owner releases the working mule into the open pasture but keeps the misbehaving mule confined to the small barn lot. The kicking mule is no longer hitched to the working mule, but he is still bound to his owner\u2019s \u201claw\u201d and is not afforded the same rights as the working mule.<\/span><\/p>\n God\u2019s Law says that the one sinned against<\/strong> has the right to remarry, not the one who sinned. God never allows one to gain a selfish advantage or benefit from his own sinful behavior, as this absurd doctrine would afford. If both spouses (fornicating and nonfornicating) have equal Scriptural right to remarry, one wonders why Jesus even bothered<\/strong> to discuss the matter<\/strong>. These (and other) principles being so, the Lord is therefore actually implying a strong prohibition<\/strong> of remarriage for the fornicating spouse in the very course of allowing only the innocent spouse to remarry.<\/span><\/p>\n Various ploys are currently being used to redefine and mitigate the sin of adultery. \u201cAdultery is simply the breaking of the marriage covenant and putting away of one\u2019s spouse, whether or not sexual relations with another have been involved. Therefore, one can later marry another by simply saying, \u2018I\u2019m sorry for breaking up our marriage.\u2019\u201d As ridiculous and untrue as it is, some brethren are actually teaching this. Literally, adultery<\/em> always refers to \u00a0unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another person. The literal act of adultery cannot be defined apart from sexual intercourse, as any recognized Greek lexicon will attest. These new definers of adultery<\/em> argue from Ezekiel 16 that Israel committed \u201cfigurative adultery\u201d by merely breaking God\u2019s Covenant. However, a correct reading of this passage shows that she \u201cwent a whoring\u201d after strange gods and therein was the \u201cadultery\u201d (vv. 15\u201332). Their \u201cadultery\u201d broke the covenant, but breaking the covenant was not that which constituted adultery (vv. 35\u201339). John 8:4 defines adultery<\/em> as used in Matthew 19:9 and every other literal passage: \u201cThis woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act<\/strong>\u201d (v. 4, emph. DM). Was she caught merely suing her husband for divorce (i.e., for \u201cbreaking their covenant\u201d?<\/span><\/p>\n Another ploy is to say that adultery is only a one-time act in an unscriptural marriage, rather than a continuous or repeated act.\u00a0 None would ever take such an untenable position did he not have some very unorthodox position to uphold. Those who take this position, take it only on adultery (on no other sin), and only lately have they done so on adultery. Adultery is not depicted as a one-time act in Matthew 19:9. Notice the following: put away<\/em> is a one-time act as indicated by the aorist tense; shall marry another<\/em> is likewise a one-time act (aorist tense). \u00a0However,committeth adultery<\/em> is a present tense form, which, except in very rare cases, denotes a process or an on-going activity,\u00a0 This fact must be the intent of the Lord here as indicated by the abrupt change in the verb tenses.\u00a0 The sin of adultery in Matthew 19:9 is committed just as often as one is sexually intimate with his or her forbidden mate, just as one commits theft as often as he steals.\u00a0 This absurd position argues further that it is unscriptural to speak of one\u2019s \u201cliving in adultery.\u201d However, Colossians 3:5\u20137 counters this allegation. Paul mentions fornication and several other sins and then says \u201cWherein ye also once walked when ye lived <\/strong>in these things\u201d (emph. DM).\u00a0 One surely does no violence to Scripture to refer to the continual practice of any sin as \u201cliving\u201d in said sin.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Many other strange and new winds of doctrine on this subject are being blown about by brethren, but space forbids further notice of them. It is no wonder that some of these are meeting with wide acceptance because they are at the same time soft, compromising, ear- tickling, self-justifying, and convenient. They represent the old adage, \u201cIf you can\u2019t lick \u2018em, join\u2019em.\u201d Many are being swept away because they are almost totally ignorant of God\u2019s Word on this subject. Tragically, these doctrines are filling the churches with impenitent adulterers and fornicators, and it is frightening to anticipate the fruit that will be produced when a whole generation in the church has been influenced by them, including elders and deacons.<\/span><\/p>\n Some are actually teaching that such admitted changes in attitude toward marriage, divorce, and remarriage are necessary because there is so much divorce and remarriage in the world and the church. Such an argument is situation ethics, unabashed. Against all such compromising, Jesus\u2019 teaching on this subject, as on all subjects, is unapologetic, narrow, dogmatic, and therefore as unpopular now as it was in the first century. Nonetheless, we must stand with Him and for Him on this and every other subject, for to reject His word is to reject Him (John 12:48). Hebrews 13:4 still declares: \u201cLet marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.\u201d Will Jesus\u2019 judgment be any less sore on those who have deceived fornicators and adulterers into believing that they are not such, thus allowing them to reach the Judgment deceived and lost because of their impurities?<\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this MS by request for, and it was published in the May 1983 edition of The Restorer<\/em>, ed. Gary Workman.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 1[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles\u00a0page.] Introduction Every other couple that says, \u201cI do,\u201d is later saying, \u201cI don\u2019t.\u201d The ratio is three out of five marriages ending in divorce in California. Divorce laws in America have been…<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n