|
Words are important and powerful when used correctly, but when the meaning is changed words can be harmful and destructive. We find "words" 572 times in the KJV, and "word" is found 1701 times. Paul commanded Timothy to "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim.1:13). Before his conversion Peter was sent to someone "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved" (Acts 11:14). Thus, we see the importance of truth that is conveyed only through words.
Some men who seek to defend the practice of breaking up marriages and imposing celibacy on people who need marriage "to avoid fornication" have accused me of redefining the word apoluo. They contend that this word means divorce, which is a vital assumption for any hopes of support of their teaching and practice.
It is interesting that they say that if we are allowed to change the meaning of words, we can prove anything. This is one thing on which we agree. Our concern in this article is who is doing the changing of words. Thayer does not define apoluo as divorce, but he did say some used it that way. I heartily and confidently contend and defend the idea that unless the sending away is accompanied with a "certificate of divorce," it is merely a separation. Furthermore, the versions that translate apoluo as divorce have done so errantly and presumptuously. (See: https://totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-matthew-5-32.htm)
If you are a careful observer of current politics in the United States, you have seen that the Democrat party consistently and regularly falsely accuse opponents of behaviors of which they themselves are guilty. The same is true of those on the wrong side of the divorce and marriage issue. Indeed, those who contend for the traditional practice of breaking up legal marriages and imposing celibacy believe some strange things.
First, and foremost, they insist that "put away" means divorce even though it clearly means "to send away," as confirmed by the Hebrew equivalent that is translated "send out" in Deuteronomy 24:2. Furthermore, apoluo is used about 60 times in the Greek New Testament where it obviously has no connection to divorce at all.
Some will tell you that "marry" doesn’t mean marry. A man can legally and scripturally marry a divorced woman but is told there is no marriage "in God's eyes." Thus, the proponents of this false doctrine have changed the meaning of marriage to adultery.
They also say "loosed" doesn't mean loosed. The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that the "loosed" do not sin if they marry. "Art thou loosed from a wife? ... if thou marry, thou hast not sinned" (1 Cor. 7:28). But traditional teachers insist that divorce does not loose one. Basically, they are not only denying the passage that defines divorce and states that the divorced "may go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:1-2) but are also denying this passage that plainly affirms that the loosed (divorced) may marry.
They say "bound to a wife" does not mean married to a wife - that one can be divorced (unmarried) but still bound. Thus, they change the obvious and intended meaning of the word.
They say "divorced" (the closest word to express what Paul means in his use of the word "loosed") doesn’t really mean divorced. From Deuteronomy 24:1-2 we learn what a divorce is and what it accomplishes. But according to traditional MDR teachers, a woman can be divorced from a man but still married to him.
Traditional MDR teachers must change the meaning of "any man," as found in Paul's teachings: "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin...let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry" (1 Cor. 7:36). They must contend that the passage does not refer to any man but only to those "eligible" according to their assumptions, and they therefore insist that some sin by marrying and forbid them to so do.
When speaking of the "loosed" (divorced) and the "unmarried" (1 Cor. 7:8-9), traditional MDR teachers need "Let them marry" to mean something else; not sure what - don’t let them marry? For sure, these false teachers have a problem with obeying a direct command.
"Depart" (chorizo) means divorce and "put away" (Gk) means “divorce” (where legal papers are provided to document the action), but “divorce” does not mean divorce unless it was done for a certain reason. Or so we are told.
Continued observations:
What do these teachers think "he sinneth not" means? Their teaching has the passage saying the man sins if he marries if he has been divorced. This is contrary to the words "any man." God specified who we are to let marry - but His limitation was only that the male be a "man" as opposed to a child; in following human tradition these teachers limit who may marry.
"Forbidding to marry" is a negative statement condemning those who are guilty. But traditional MDR teachers limit it to exclude themselves. While they are guilty of forbidding marriage to people who need it to "avoid fornication" (1 Cor.7:2), they say the passage is applicable to someone else - to Catholic priests or people who do not believe in marriage at all. And they go right on and do that which Paul condemns as if they are commanded to do so.
Traditional MDR teachers change the word "depart" or "leave" (chorizo) to mean divorce. Thus, they change the situation set forth in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 to be a matter of divorce rather than separation for which the couple are encouraged to "reconcile."
The word "unmarried" is used by the apostle Paul as he endeavors to persuade men to let the "unmarried" have a spouse. His command (1 Cor. 7:8-9) is clear and unmistakable - "let them marry." But traditional MDR teachers insist that unmarried, contrary to definition, refers only to those never married or those who have divorced for fornication. It should not go unnoted that Paul gave the reason for this command back in verses 1 and 2 - "to avoid fornication."
The apostle Paul allows the "unmarried" to marry, and commands those who would object to do the same. "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor. 7:9). "Cannot contain" is changed to mean one CAN contain if they will simply be faithful. Thus, the command to be celibate is justified, contrary to this passage, by saying these divorced people CAN contain. The divorced, it would seem, would most likely not be able to contain, but the passage is ignored or changed to mean something else.
While we read "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen 2:18), traditional MDR teachers insist that not only is it good for some to be alone - it is a requirement. Essentially, the statement is changed to "it is good that we require some to remain celibate." "Be fruitful and multiply" (a divine command that was never rescinded) is made impossible for those who are denied a family.
Not only are all these words and phrases changed by those who seek to defend and promote the traditional MDR teaching, but they disregard the Bible teaching regarding "remission of sins" - it is not applicable to the sin of having been divorced, even if the divorce was not one's fault. This person must be punished with a life of celibacy.
I close with this final comment: Men who use good hermeneutics in studying all other issues totally disregard the necessity to so do when it comes to divorce and marriage.
For further study of this issue follow the link below that takes you to a large selection of articles:
https://www.totalhealth.bz/marriage-and-divorce.htm
|
