Follow-up on Past Comments concerning Divorce and Re-marriage (05-20-05)
by Tommy West (Wake Forest, North Carolina)
Tommy
Writes:
Darwin and Laura,
Greetings once again. I hope both of you are well and prosperous after your physical trials of the recent
past. It is certainly true that all of our lives have changed and continue to do so.
My purpose in this letter is to hopefully
finalize certain points that were opened and discussed over two years ago on the controversial subject of divorce and re-marriage.
In that
Newsletter, in the left column, first paragraph, Laura writes, "You have now written two letters to me, but neither one of them explains
how people are joined by God in marriage. Is it the marriage license, contract, sex or some other means.?"
Jesus answers that
question in Matt. 19:4-5:
4. And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them
male and female,
5. and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall
become one flesh'? Mark's account is similar: Mark 10:6-8
6. But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female,'
7. 'For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
8. 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they
are no longer two, but one flesh."
The only way for a man and a woman to become one flesh physically is through sexual intercourse.
The marriage license is a mutual agreement (both parties) that they love one another and desire to live together for life.
Laura
Writes:You are right, the only way for a man and woman to become one flesh physically is through sexual intercourse. The marriage
license is a man made document. Some States even today do not require a marriage license for two people to be legally married.
Tommy
Writes:
On page 13 of
Newsletter #13, in the middle of the first column we read:
"EDITOR'S NOTE:
Mathew 5:32 But I say unto
you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced (because of fornication) committeth adultery. You state that there is no exception clause, may I ask what
exactly this is as stated in Matthew 5:32? It is also stated in Matthew 19:7-9:
7. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command
to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8. He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered
you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away (for fornication) doth
commit adultery.
In both places Christ is the one who stated this exception along with the clear intent from the beginning.
If you do not believe these to be exception clauses as you put it, then please explain to all, exactly what these are? Please also
explain what fornication is, as explained in the Bible?"
You advised me in the next paragraph to consult a harmony of the gospels
to get the full meaning. I did. And when I consulted Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18, I found no exception clause. Then I consulted Romans
7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7. Again, no exception clause. So, neither Mark, nor Luke, nor Paul were aware of an exception clause that
only Matthew noted. I must ask, "Why?" If Jesus DID actually speak the words "except for adultery" as Matthew states, then these other
authors are ignorant, deceived, or both.
Laura Writes:
Technically I told you to consult the entire Bible in regard to this subject
and not just the 4 gospels. Matthew put more detail into his account than some of the others, but that does not mean that the others
were ignorant or deceived as to what the law of God says in regard to divorce. Again read Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Also the wording
is "except it be for fornication" which can include "adultery" but also includes a whole lot more than just that one thing.
Tommy
Writes:
We read in 2 Corinthians 13:1b: "By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." Here, Paul is quotingDeut. 17:6 and Deut. 19:15. Paul was confirming an age-old principle that just as one witness was not enough to convict a murderer,neither is just one witness enough to affirm a spiritual principle. Note, please, that there must be 2 witnesses -- NOT 2 SCRIPTURES.
In the case of the "exception clause", though THAT SCRIPTURE appears twice in the gospel of Matthew, THERE IS ONLY ONE WITNESS. We
also know that there are questionable scriptures found in the Bible, one being John 7:53 -- 8:11, the incident of the woman caught
in adultery. Because there is only one witness and because neither Mark, nor Luke, nor Paul mention the "exception clause", I have
good reason to believe that the clause is spurious and NOT IN THE ORIGINAL.
Laura Writes:
The only reason you are hoping that
it is not in the original would be because it does not fit in with the doctrine which you are teaching so therefore you will do whatever
you can to throw the scripture from the Bible.
If you want to claim that this exception clause is not in the original text, then
we can't just take your word for that, we would have to have some form of valid proof and you didn't send us any.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Since the Bible itself tells us all scripture is given by inspiration of God..., that would be another witness to Matthews account,
since God is the one who inspired it to be written in the first place.
We do understand that there are some translation errors
in the Bible, however we would need to see the proof for this being one of them and as I said, you sent no proof.
Also, there
are many things written throughout the Bible to prove that marriage in a sin filled world is not always for life no matter what. We
do agree with you that God's intent in the perfect world that He created was for one man and one woman to be married for life, but
when sin came most things changed and marriage for life was one of them.
For instance the "Law of Moses" is the "Law of God",
they are not different laws. In Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:4, it is referring the reader back to the law of God in the Old Testament.
Both of these accounts also tell us why divorce was allowed by God through Moses. It was due to the hardness of their hearts. (Mark
10:5, Matthew 19:8)
In Lev. 19:16 which is part of the law of God it tells us that we are not to put our neighbors life in jeopardy.
Who is our closest neighbor? It would be our mate. So if one is beating on their mate regularly, it is clearly against the law of
God. Why would anyone have to stay in that type of fornication (sin)?
In Hosea 13 the entire chapter, it shows that those who
are with Baal are considered to be "dead". Those who are apostate (sinning against God on a regular basis with no remorse) are considered
to be dead.
What is written in the Old Testament was written first. What is written in the New Testament is sometimes hard to
understand on it's own as it is a work of references which refer back to the things written in the Old Testament, so one must take
the partial quotes from the New Testament and find the entire statement or law as written in the Old Testament or you will not be
able to understand what is being said. Talk to a person who only uses the New Testament sometime and see just how confused they are
in regard to what scripture says.
Tommy Writes:
What is fornication? There are 2 OT definitions. According to STRONG'S they are
OT #'s 2181 and 8457. The first, #2181 is zanah, zaw-naw; to commit adultery; fig. to commit idolatry. The second word, #8457 is taznuwth or taznuth,taz-nooth; harlotry or fig. idolatry.
In the NT, the Greek word for fornication is STRONG'S #4202, porneia, por-ni-ah; from
#4203; harlotry (incl. adultery and incest); fig. idolatry. These are accepted meanings.
Laura Writes:
As you can see, the very
definition you have given for fornication includes idolatry which is sin. Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are
upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Tommy
Writes:
In the same column, Laura writes, "God always held both the man and the woman responsible for committing adultery. My advice
on your point two would be, to be less concerned about Jewish law and more concerned about God's law." MY short response to that is,
"Most Jewish law is God's law. The Jews were given the oracles of GOD. (Rom. 3:2). Also, note that Jesus told the woman at the well
that "salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22).
Laura Writes:
When I was telling you to be more concerned about God's law than about
Jewish Law, I was talking about the extra stuff the Jewish people added which was never a part of God's law. The law of God which
the Jewish people preserved for us all this time is God's law and not Jewish law. It does say "the oracles of God" and not "the oracles
of the Jews", does it not? Yet it is a well know fact that the Jewish people added many things to God's law in order to bind heavy
burdens on the people. If you misunderstood my statement, I am sorry.
Tommy Writes:
Further, in the same center column of the
same
Newsletter, you write:
"NOTE:
In regard to your statement: '(It might also be noted that most Bible scholars contend that
Mark wrote his epistle first having heard the words directly from the apostle Peter.)' #1--Mark's book is well known by most serious
Bible students as the Gospel of Mark, not an epistle. #2-- "Bible Scholars?" If that can be proven from scripture that Mark heard
'the words' as you state here from Peter first, then we need clear scripture that proves that, other wise its just that, contend,
which equals "scholars opinion". #3-- What are you referring to when you say "the words", the words specifically quoted by you Mark
10:1-12 or all of the words that Mark wrote in his gospel called Mark?
Jesus' disciples walked with and were all taught by Him
throughout His three and a half year ministry. For someone to make claim that certain disciples only heard certain words of Jesus
from another disciple and not directly from Jesus Himself is a bit of a stretch and matters little as to what and how God inspired
His writers to write what God wanted written down. Darwin Lee."
In response to Darwin's three points: #1. Darwin is correct in
noting that most serious Bible students regard Mark's inspired book to be a "Gospel".
So it is. I apologize to Darwin and everyone
else. #2. The Bible neither confirms or disproves this point. It must be noted, however, that
only the chosen twelve apostles were
with Christ during His earthly ministry and then not in every instance. During the TRANSFIGURATION, for instance, only Peter, James
and John accompanied Jesus to the mount. WE KNOW MARK WAS NOT THERE. WE ALSO KNOW HE RECORDED THE INCIDENT. HE EITHER HEARD IT FROM
SOMEONE OR SAW WRITTEN EVIDENCE. EARLY CHURCH HISTORY INDICATES THAT MARK HEARD THE ACCOUNT FROM PETER. Eusebius, c. 140 A.D. or earlier,
Justin Martyr, c. 150 and others all attest that Mark heard Peter's oral account of
Jesus' acts and wrote down what he remembered.
#3. My use of the phrase "the words" could cause confusion. By "all the words" I meant all the words in the Gospel of Mark.
To
conclude, my
first letter was a response to
Rhoda Foust's article in
Newsletter #11.
"Who Is, or Is Not Free to Marry?" It was my
intent then and now to emphasize the permanence of marriage between a man and a woman. The 7th Commandment is etched in stone and
should ever be
etched in our hearts: YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. (
Ex. 20:14, Deut. 5:18). If one carefully studies New Testament
scriptures which cite what
Jesus' position is on this subject, the eternal truth is affirmed and re-affirmed that marriage
between
a man and a woman is for life. There are no exceptions. Matthew 19:6b -- "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."Adultery is a major problem within the body of Christ. It shouldn't be. All that needs to be done is to
Obey the commandment.
Laura
Writes:
Again, I do agree that in a perfect world God intended that marriage be for life and it should be a goal that all of God's
people should strive for.
The thing that Tommy seems to continue to ignore is that we are not living in a perfect world at this
point and because of that God did allow for divorce and it is written into the law. We find it in Deut. 24:1-4. Another point that
Tommy does not consider is that many men throughout scripture had more than one wife including David and God did not count it as sin.
Jacob had four wives and God blessed him greatly.
When David took another man's wife it was considered to be adultery and God
was not pleased with him. Another definition of "adultery" is apostasy (sinning against God).
Tommy is defining adultery to mean
more than one wife, yet many men of God had several wives and were blessed greatly. We are not advocating divorce for no reason. We
are saying that no person should have to stay in a marriage where they are being beaten or where they are having to put up with any
number of lifestyles of sin being forced on them. The person who is beating someone or continuing in a lifestyle of sin because they
want to are not only apostate from God, but they are the perpetrator of the crimes against their mate. The other mate that is having
these lifestyles forced on them due to a marriage relationship are the victims and God allowed for them to not only divorce but to
also be allowed to re-marry, but only in the Lord.
This debate will probably last as long as we do, so it is up to the reader
to study this very large subject for themselves and draw their own conclusions as to what scripture really says.
