Divorce and Remarriage: When and Why I Changed

During the first several years of my time as a preacher of the gospel I stood with those who hold the "traditional" belief regarding divorce and marriage, which is that Jesus taught that, in order to marry, someone who is divorced must be the "innocent" one and divorce "for fornication." I never did really think it made sense, so I did not preach a sermon on the topic, nor did I seek to have any articles published on it. For more than twenty years of preaching, I had not heard or read anything regarding this issue that seemed reasonable, logical, and hermeneutically sound. The first rational teaching I heard was from Olan Hicks, yet he didn't fully explain what Jesus was dealing with and saying. Here is a link to an article that explains our differences:

https://www.totalhealth.bz/Hicks-marriage-divorce-remarriage.htm

The most obvious mistake by traditional MDR teachers is their failure to recognize that Jesus could not have contradicted the Law of Moses, which allowed the woman to "go and be another man's wife" once she was given the certificate of divorcement (Deut. 24:1, 2). Such a contradiction would have given just reason for the Jews to kill Him, but they did not charge Him with teaching contrary to that law. Instead, they fabricated accusations to bring up at His trial. Since He could not have been at odds with the Law, and virtually every scholar of note agrees to this, there must be a reasonable explanation for what Jesus said about the "divorced" woman's committing adultery if she marries—an explanation that allows harmony of Jesus' teaching with the law that was in effect at the time. Jesus was a teacher of the Law of Moses and did not contradict it. When He said, "But I say unto you," He was not taking issue with Moses, or God's established law, but with the false notions of the Jews pertaining to the things He noted. Below are two links to articles that deal with the idea that Jesus contradicted Moses:

https://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-contradict.htm
https://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-until-john.htm

The key to understanding the divorce and marriage issue is to know the situation of the woman being "put away," as translated by the KJV and at least a dozen other versions. The woman would not commit adultery because she was divorced but because she was NOT divorced. She was "put away," i.e., sent out of the house. Being put away and being divorced are not the same thing. (Translators ERR by rendering apoluo as divorce.) The most obvious observation that should cause one to question translating apoluo as divorce is the fact that one can be Put Away But Not Divorced (title of my free 270-page book). "Put away" is translated from the Greek word apoluo and is equivalent to the Hebrew word shalach, which is translated "send out" (Deut. 24:1, 2). Certainly, a woman could at that time be sent out of the house yet not be divorced and therefore NOT be free to marry.

The Greek word for divorce is not apoluo. It is apostasion. Without the bill of divorcement there is no divorce as God defines it, and simply putting away is not in accordance with the example He set (Jer. 3:8). Jesus was dealing with Jewish men who had come to think it was okay to divorce. But there was a bigger problem with which He had to deal, and that was that some were APOLUOing their wives but not giving them the certificate of divorcement. They had TWO possible motives for that evil: 1) they hated the wife and did not want her to be able to marry or take up with another man; or 2) they were given a dowry by the woman’s father upon marriage, which they were obligated to return to her if they divorced her; thus, by simply keeping the marriage intact, even though the woman was sent (apoluoed) out to be on her own, the husband would not have to pay back the dowry. Putting away without the certificate of divorce is what Jesus was referring to when He said the man would be guilty of "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). Furthermore, it was a treacherous act condemned in no uncertain terms: "For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously" (Mal. 2:16).

The most misunderstood and abused text regarding divorce is the "exception clause." Once one learns what is presented above, it is, however, easy to understand the "exception clause" that many think is where Jesus said a "divorce" had to be for fornication (though they invariably say He said adultery) in order to end the marriage, or at least free oneself from it. (The idea that a marriage is ended but both are not "unmarried" cannot be defended.) The fornication Jesus spoke of is an illegal marriage. We have two examples in the New Testament of illegal marriages (incest): Matthew 14 and 1 Corinthians 5. A man who puts away his woman because of fornication (an illegal marriage), and we are not talking about divorce, is NOT guilty of "adultery against her." This is the exception about which Jesus spoke-not the idea that a divorce must be for fornication to be a divorce. That idea results in innocent people's being punished for the sins of another.

The traditional teaching that I was taught in early life not only has Jesus contradicting Moses, who taught God's law, but also does not allow Paul's teaching and Jesus' teaching to harmonize. The reason is that the view is incorrect. In his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul condemned doing what traditional teachers do-forbidding marriage for people who have no marriage and need it to "avoid fornication" (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Paul put this teaching in the category of "doctrines of devils." It destroys lives, families, churches, and souls, and makes evangelists' efforts very difficult because it causes many to turn away from God and the church when this unscriptural and difficult burden is placed on them. Jesus said, "My burden is light." It is, but not when harmful false doctrines are applied. Regarding those who need marriage to "avoid fornication" Paul said to let every man and every woman have a spouse (1 Cor. 7:1, 2). Concerning those who are "unmarried," Paul said that "if they cannot contain" LET THEM MARRY. (Divorced persons are unmarried, and those who have been married often are the ones needing marriage the most.) "Let them marry" is a direct command that would seem to be something no one would fail to understand. Yet in the event some might not understand, Paul went on to contrast those "bound" (married) with those "loosed" (divorced), and to declare that the loosed "do not sin if they marry" (verses 27 and 28). Paul's words are so simple one must have help to misunderstand. Efforts have been made to prove that the "unmarried" does not include the divorced, but such efforts fail. Efforts have also been made to establish that the "loosed" are only those who divorced their spouse for fornication, but proponents of this doctrine fail to provide acceptable evidence in debate. Paul did not even hint that a divorce had to be for some particular reason in order to be a divorce, nor did he say one had to be the one to initiate the divorce, as some brethren contend. This doctrine promotes a "race to the courthouse" that encourages divorce.

I changed when I saw the truth, and the reason I changed is because the truth is what sets us free (John 8:32). Holding to doctrines and commandments of men, to include "forbidding to marry," is the type of thing included in Jesus' warnings about vain worship (Matt. 15:9; Tit. 1:14).

I have debated several men on this issue. Perhaps the best one was with JT Smith. Here is a link to it:

https://www.totalhealth.bz/smith-waters-divorce-complete.pdf