|
Many in the Lord's church insist that one who has been divorced (whether innocent or not) is still married "in the eyes of God." Since both the Bible and our current law teach that divorce ends marriage, the statement must be seen as far more than an assumption or inconsequential notion.
First, because of a need that became apparent due to men's hard hearts and that encompassed a lack of concern for their wives, God inspired Moses to make a law that freed the woman "to go and be another man’s wife." If the man followed the instructions, the divorce papers were provided to the woman, which were her proof she was "loosed" - no longer "bound" to her previous husband and eligible to marry. This is THE foundation for understanding the divorce and marriage issue.
Some argue that the Old Testament was "done away with" and/or "we don’t live under the Old Testament." This is supposed to be a defense of the practice of breaking up marriages and imposing celibacy. But is it a legitimate defense? The justification offered for such a practice is based upon what those espousing it believe to be the teaching of Jesus, but the Law of Moses was the focal point for the discussion Jesus had with the Jews who referred to it for authority. Jesus also referred his adversaries to the Law for authority when He asked, "What did Moses command you?" (Mark 10:3). The Old Testament is part of God's word, the Bible. It alone contains the fundamental teaching for both marriage and divorce. It is not law for the New Testament church because the church has no authority over marriage and divorce. We might say the teaching is timeless.
It became more difficult for English speaking Bible students to ascertain the truth after the Greek word apoluo was translated as "divorce" in one passage in the KJV and other passages as well in many of the new versions. This changed everything for the worse and with serious consequences. But when it is understood that Jesus was condemning men for putting away or sending away a wife, but not according to God's command found in Deuteronomy 24:1-2, there is no drastic change. Jesus was not contradicting established law and was not breaking His promise not to do so (Matt. 5:18), nor were Jews at the time, and disciples from that point on, required to practice things unjust and contrary to the teaching of the Law and the apostle Paul's teachings that came after the cross. These teachings include: 1) the mention of traditional teachers' practice of "forbidding marriage" as being a special kind of sin (1 Tim. 4:1-3); 2) the command to let every man and every woman have a spouse so they can "avoid fornication" (1 Cor. 7:1-2); 3) the command to let the "unmarried" marry ("let them marry" vs. 8-9); and 4) the declaration that the "loosed" do not sin if they marry (vs. 27-28).
Despite the contrast Paul made between those "bound" (married) and those "loosed" (divorced), some insist that the "loosed" are only those whose spouse died or who initiated divorce "for fornication." Showing the proponents of this doctrine that there is no foundation for that idea often does not even cause them to scratch their head. So, we try to demonstrate to them what Jesus had in mind when He mentioned the exception clause (found only in Matthew's account).
To understand the exception clause, one must first understand that the men's sin was APOLUOing - sending away but not following God's command for what we today call a legal divorce, which is what the woman was happy to receive so she could marry another. This was made clear when Jesus said the man's sin was "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). It follows, then, that the exception to his actions being sin (sending away) would be a case wherein the reason he did it was "for fornication." This was not HER sin, but HIS reason for his action when he learned the marriage was illegal. This is not "grounds" for divorce but a legitimate reason to stop the sinful relationship. Before you dismiss this as illogical or unsound consider that we have two New Testament examples of the need to end a relationship (no divorce needed) because of incest (Matt. 14; 1 Cor. 5).
Strangely, many today apply their false notion of the exception clause to both men and women. But it was only the woman put away (sent out) who would commit adultery if she married, as would the man who might marry her, and this was because she was NOT divorced, rather than because she WAS divorced. Remember, it has been established that divorce ends marriage. But after some traditional MDR teachers recognize this fact, they bring up another often-heard quibble. They say the divorced are not still married but may not marry another "because Jesus said so." In view of the unanswerable problems with their view it should be apparent that their idea of what Jesus "said" is a false notion.
Let's get back to the phrase "in the eyes of God." There are several passages (about thirteen) that speak of "in the eyes of the Lord." It is how God sees things and people. In studying this issue, or any other, our concern should be "What does the Bible teach?" When we understand and teach the truth, found in the Bible, we will be understanding of, and hopefully teaching, how God sees the divorce issue.
|
