|
Some Christians are so determined to defend their own traditions (not recognizing divorce, which results in breaking up marriages and imposing celibacy) that they will deny the inspiration of the Scriptures. For instance, Larry Paterson Jr. wrote:
"One has to go to the Old Testament where Moses (not God) gave permission to divorce. Jesus said that Moses' command was not God's will from the beginning."
The above is flagrant false teaching that traditionalists have been forced to adopt when giving up their own beliefs and practices was not an option. Let us now observe some truths that fully expose the above false teaching:
First, we need to be reminded that the Bible is inspired. "All scripture is inspired of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). ALL scripture - not just the parts one likes. This includes Deuteronomy 24:1-2, which traditional teachers wish would go away.
Second, Moses is the most esteemed prophet of the Old Testament. Prophets spoke FOR God. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son..." (Heb 1:1,2). Every Christian acknowledges that Moses was a prophet. But, if for some reason Moses was not inspired and God did not speak through him, who can explain why the comparison to Christ, a prophet, who speaks to us in these last days?
He wrote the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. After the New Testament came into force the apostle Paul said that those who "are of the works of the law are under the curse." He went on to say, "for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10). Thus, Jesus would be cursed if He had (as often accused) contradicted the Law on ANY matter.
The following statement by Arthur Doyler makes perfect sense:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The teaching that Jesus changed the Law, giving a woman who obtains a bill of divorcement the right to "go and be another man's wife," is based upon an argument that is impossible. Jesus could not have changed the Law because He would have been cursed if He had so done.
Jesus lived and died while the Law was in force. When He condemned the Jews for their evil practice of putting away, not in the manner stipulated by God, the action was described as adultery against the woman (Deut. 24:1-2; Mk 10:11).
Let's close by dealing with Patterson's above statement:
First, Moses "suffered" (he did not "give permission") to "put away," which is not divorce. He tolerated it - he did nothing about it because it was a separation, and separations are temporary. Couples that separate often get back together. Divorce, had it been forced upon the man, would have made the separation more permanent, especially if the wife married another (Deut. 24:4).
Second, God gave the divorce law because it was needed so the women that were being kicked out of the house might be able to have a life. The reason it was provided was because of "hardness of heart," but this is not to be understood as a temporary practice unique to the Jews at the time. Hardness of heart would continue to exist and therefore the need for the divorce law would continue to exist.
Third, the fact that Jesus mentioned how it was in the beginning (no divorce) is not to be taken as a contradiction to the current law on divorcement but was a response to the Jewish men who were seeking to justify divorce for any cause. There was no sin in the beginning but obviously there is now, and the need for dealing with sin (to include actions of evil men against their wives) continues to exist.
Fourth, as pointed out above and according to Galatians 3:10 (see text above), Jesus would have been cursed if He had not followed the teachings of the Law. Therefore, we have eliminated the possibility that Jesus changed the Law regarding Moses' teaching on divorce. Thus, "Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." That God inspired Moses in all his writings and that Jesus did keep the Law perfectly are seen by all Bible believers as factual concepts. Indeed, had Jesus not observed the Law He would have broken His promise found in Matthew 5:17-19 that not one little thing would change before all was fulfilled - which would be after His death.
Finally, note Paul's comments to Timothy regarding resisting (standing against) Moses, which Paul likens to resisting what he himself was teaching:
"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith" (2 Tim. 3:8).
In the time of Jesus men resisted Moses. Today they resist Jesus, who upheld the teachings of Moses. In standing against either, we stand against God. The traditional teaching that a divorced person may not marry again is not biblical, and it should not be taught or upheld by any God-fearing Christian.
|
