|
I was asked by a friend to deal with part of Wayne Jackson's article called "Are the Gospels a Part of the New Testament?" Jackson's article dealt with the teaching of some brethren (who understand that it is unjust and unscriptural to forbid marriage) who think they can defeat traditional error by showing that Jesus' teachings in Matthew 19 are not applicable to us today. Since I do not agree with these brethren, but with Wayne who believes that Jesus' teachings do apply, I wish to deal with only one part of his article: "Christ’s Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage: Not a Part of the Law of Moses."
Wayne wrote:
"Finally, the context of Matthew 19:3ff makes it absolutely clear that the Lord’s teaching regarding divorce and remarriage was not a part of the law of Moses. In fact, Christ contrasts his impending law with that of the previous regime."
Wayne concludes this part of his article by writing the following:
"And I say unto you, whosoever shall divorce his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, is committing adultery: and he who marries her when she is divorced is committing adultery" (v. 9). "This is Christ's doctrine —Christian doctrine—not Mosaic legislation."
I shall reply to these comments in the order presented. Let's first take a look at verse 3. "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" The thing that is clear about this text is that it does not support what Wayne said about it: "That the Lord's teaching regarding divorce and remarriage was not a part of the law of Moses." Wayne is saying Jesus was teaching something NEW and CONTRARY to the current law of God that all Jews at the time, including Jesus, were expected to follow. Friends, Wayne is making a charge against Jesus that even the Pharisees, who sought reason to kill Him, did not make.
The Scenario:
The Pharisees sought to get Jesus to take sides on the controversial issue of the meaning of Deut. 24:1-2, hoping he would say something they could use against Him, or at least wanting to cause Him trouble with one of the parties once He took sides (but he did not take sides). They had no concern for a future answer but one they could use against him immediately. That Jesus' reply was applicable to those to whom he spoke at the time is evident from the context: 1) The Jewish men were committing sin of which they were expected to repent (if they were not sinning against their women then Jesus falsely accused them; 2) the Pharisees asked Jesus a question; 3) Jesus answered them and rebuked them for not having read about God's ideal for marriage; 4) "they" asked him another question; 5) Jesus responded to them regarding THEIR law, the Law of Moses; and, 6) there is no indication in the context that Jesus' remarks were intended to be heard and obeyed ONLY by people in the future. His words were directed to the people to whom He spoke—people who were living under the Law of Moses. [For a more thorough study of this issue see the Smith/Waters Debate.
Wayne continued:
"Under the Mosaic system, loose practices relative to divorce were permitted due to the "hardness" of the nation's hearts. Jesus noted, however, "but from the beginning it has not been so" (v. 8). The divine ideal had never changed, and in the coming Christian age the laxness of the previous administration was to be terminated, being replaced by a loftier code of marital conduct."
Kind reader, God NEVER said it was okay to divorce—not before the Law, during or after. To so do would have been to encourage divorce and be contrary to His ideal. God's divorce law was given because of the fact that marriages fail. As Wayne almost said above, the divine ideal has never changed. The matter Jesus sought to correct was well explained by Mike Willis a few decades ago, when he noted that the women of Jesus' day were not being given the certificate of divorce, which caused a great hardship on them. Wayne suggests that God suffered "divorce" because of the hardness of men's hearts, but this is not what Jesus said. He said God suffered the practice of putting away, APOLUOing, if you will, which is not divorce.
Let's back up a little. God gave a command to give a certificate of divorce (Deut. 24:1, 2; Mk. 10:3), so the idea that divorce is what Jesus was referring to when He used the word "suffered" cannot be correct. God "suffered" the practice of putting away. Just as there was no judicial system set up to determine if a man's "reason" for divorcing was according to the Law, there was no judicial system set up to determine when a man's action in sending a woman out of the house (without the required papers) was permanent. Separations were common then as they are today. Paul dealt with the matter very delicately in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:10, 11). What God "suffered" (in not setting up a system to punish) because of the hardness of men's hearts was the very subject Jesus was addressing: men's putting away, which does not mean divorce. This is evident because one can "Put Away But Not Divorce", which is to disobey Moses (Deut. 24:1, 2; Jer. 3:8). Yet, Wayne asserts that Jesus "replaced" God's teaching with "a loftier code of marital conduct." Let's discuss the problems with Wayne's assertion:
First, IF it is TRUE that divorce is what Jesus was dealing with and that the version Wayne quoted from, above, has properly translated the Greek word "apoluo," then Jesus made it HARDER for both women and men, especially an innocent woman with children who is divorced by an evil mate. In view of the fact that the Law allowed the divorced woman to "go be another man's wife," which kept her from being destitute and committing prostitution or adultery (and possibly stoned) by marrying without having been given a divorce, it is evident that Wayne’s teaching is not "loftier" at all. Also, the men could have as many wives as they wanted, under the Law, but Wayne asserts that Jesus said if one is divorced he or she must remain celibate. This is where Wayne has Paul contradicting Jesus. When Paul spoke about the category he called "the unmarried" (and the divorced are "unmarried" by definition) he commanded, "let them marry" (1 Cor. 7:8, 9). Back in verse 1, 2 we see where Paul gave the reason to let people have a marriage. In verse 27, 28, where Paul spoke of the "loosed" (divorced) he concluded by saying they do not sin if they marry.
When Jesus said "but I say unto you" he was not taking issue with Moses, who was inspired to write what God wanted. He was taking issue with the false notions of the Jews. The highly respected commentator Albert Barnes, who held the traditional position on divorce and marriage, explains all the "but I say unto you" contexts very well. Sound commentators are virtually unanimous in defending Jesus against the false charge that he contradicted the Law, which would have been a sin.
While I highly respect Wayne because of the good teaching he has done on many subjects, in his teaching on divorce and marriage he has not used the good hermeneutics that he uses or applies on other subjects. Consequently, he has failed to learn and teach the truth regarding the Bible's answer to the question, "Who may marry?" Not only are his arguments not sound, his position has numerous serious problems he cannot answer. Wayne's doctrine has Moses teaching what God did not want; Jesus teaching contrary to Moses; Paul teaching contrary to Jesus [1 Cor. 7:1, 2; 8-9; 27-28; 1 Tim. 4:1-3 and Romans 7:1, 4, where he said "them that know the law" (Israel) could marry Christ whom God divorced (Jer. 3:8)]; Jesus teaching contrary to the Law, which would have been regarded as sin; Jesus breaking his own promise not to change any of the Law before the cross (Matt. 5:17-19); and Jesus teaching an unjust doctrine in requiring punishment for innocent persons who happen to be divorced by an evil spouse. Unless Wayne can reasonably deal with the above problems he should stop teaching what he is teaching, learn the truth, and then tell the truth.
This article was presented to Wayne, giving him the opportunity to study with me privately, or to defend his position either by formal debate with a proposition or just replying to this article. Unfortunately, he said he had better things to do with his time.
|
