____________________________________________________ THE GOSPEL OBSERVER "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). ____________________________________________________ March 3, 2002 ____________________________________________________ The Rights of an Innocent Put-Away Person (Part 1 of 2) by Kevin Kay As long as one's first mate lives, can an innocent "put-away" person ever remarry someone else without committing adultery? Many sincere students of the Bible say yes. They argue that if the "put away" person did not want the "divorce," did everything that could be done to keep the first marriage together but to no avail, and then subsequent to the "divorce" the first mate "marries" someone else, the innocent "put away" person may then "put away" the first mate for fornication and remarry. One writer explains the reasoning behind this view in this way: Suppose a woman innocent of any wrong doing is divorced by her ruthless husband. We know that God does not recognize such a divorce. Even though a "civil divorce" has been obtained it is unscriptural and does not dissolve the marriage in God's sight. Then suppose that the husband marries another, and thus commits adultery (Matt. 19:9). What action may be taken by the innocent wife? . . . Jesus in Matthew 19:9 gives every married person the right to put away their adulterous mate. When an innocent woman is divorced, this divorce is, in the sight of God "no divorce." He does not recognize it! The innocent woman is still married in God's sight and the husband who "divorced" her is still married to her in God's sight. Their marriage has not been dissolved and as far as God is concerned she is not "put away" (apoluo). When her husband remarried he committed adultery. I contend that the innocent may then "put away" her husband. Reason? That is exactly what Christ said she could do![1] The argument being made is this. If Jack and Jill "divorce" unscripturally, they are not actually divorced in the eyes of God (only apparently divorced in the eyes of man). Thus, if Jack "marries" again unscripturally, he is not actually married in the eyes of God (only apparently married in the eyes of man); therefore, Jill may then scripturally and actually mentally[*] divorce Jack in the eyes of God for fornication (even though they are already apparently divorced in the eyes of man), and may scripturally and actually marry John in the eyes of God. I will be the first to admit that this concept seems reasonable and logical, at least on the surface. In fact, the fundamental presupposition behind it is one that I at one time believed, though I did not take it to its logical conclusion. But I now believe that this concept is false for a number of reasons, and this article will attempt to highlight the fallacies of this popular position regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Jesus stated the general rule regarding divorce and remarriage with these words: "Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18). There is only one exception to this general rule: if the "putting away" is for the cause of fornication, remarriage is not adultery. It must be noted however that this exception is only given to the one who does the "putting away"; it is never given to the one who is "put away." In fact, every passage in the NT that contemplates the remarriage of a "put away" person to someone else while the first mate is still living describes that relationship as adultery (Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18b; Romans 7:3a). Therefore, the only way that the remarriage of an innocent "put away" person can possibly be justified is to argue that the innocent "put away" person is not really a "put away" person at all. This is the fundamental argument behind this position. And this position is false, because the argument behind it is false. And the argument is false, because the fundamental presupposition behind it is false. The fundamental presupposition behind this whole concept is that one CANNOT really divorce and remarry except for fornication. One writer says: "As far as God is concerned one is `not divorced' except it be for fornication."[2] Another writer says: "Remember, to deny this divine right to such a person on the grounds of her being a put away person overlooks the fact that such putting away is futile and dethrones divine authority and enthrones human authority."[3] The assumption is that if the marriage or divorce is not RIGHT, it's not REAL; if it's not APPROVED, it's not ACTUAL; if it's not PERMISSIBLE, it's not POSSIBLE. Is this really what the Bible teaches? After Jesus reminded the Pharisees of God's general law on marriage, established at the very beginning of time (Matthew 19:4-5), He said: "So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). Please note that Jesus did not say that man CANNOT but rather that man MAY NOT put asunder what God has joined together. There is a big difference between MAY NOT and CANNOT (cf. Romans 6:12).[**] Why would Jesus have said that man should not put asunder what God has joined together if he could not do it in the first place? The very fact that Jesus commands us not to do this implies that we have the POWER but not the PERMISSION to do it. This statement alone highlights the fallacy of the fundamental presupposition behind this position. The Bible speaks of marriage and divorce as being either RIGHT or WRONG, APPROVED or UNAPPROVED, LAWFUL or UNLAWFUL, PERMISSIBLE or PROHIBITED, but it never speaks of marriage and divorce as being either REAL or UNREAL, ACTUAL or APPARENT, "IN THE EYES OF GOD" or "IN THE EYES OF MAN" as do the proponents of this position. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage! It may be right or wrong, but it is still a marriage. And the same thing is true of divorce. Something may be WRONG and yet still be recognized, by both God and man, as REAL. Jesus consistently used the same terms "put away" (apoluo) and "marrieth" (gameo) whether the activity was lawful or unlawful. Did our Lord equivocate in His use of these terms? When the proponents of this position explain the general rule concerning divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:9, they, perhaps unconsciously, have Jesus saying in effect: "Whosoever shall put away his wife (BUT NOT REALLY) . . . and shall marry another (BUT NOT REALLY), committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her (BUT NOT REALLY) committeth adultery." And then when they apply the exception clause, they have Jesus saying in effect: "Whosoever shall put away his wife (REALLY) . . . for fornication, and shall marry another (REALLY) . . . (does not commit) adultery: and he that marrieth her (some say BUT NOT REALLY, others say REALLY) when she is put away (REALLY) committeth adultery."[4] These interpreters have Jesus speaking out of both sides of His mouth at the same time -- ACCOMMODATIVELY in one instance and ACTUALLY in another. This is not sound exegesis. Can we not see that whatever the terms "put away" (apoluo) and "marrieth" (gameo) mean when fornication is involved, they mean when fornication is not involved? If not, why not??? One of the rules of literary interpretation states that "a word can have but one fixed meaning in the connection in which it occurs."[5] One might as well argue that the fornication mentioned in Matthew 19:9 is not real because it is without God's approval as to argue that unscriptural divorce and remarriage are not real because they are without God's approval. But who is willing to make that argument? Did the Pharisees and the disciples know that at times Jesus did not really mean what He said and at other times He did? The Holy Spirit tells us that Herod "married" Herodias, and yet He describes her as Philip's "wife" (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6: 17-18; Luke 3:19). Whether it was an unlawful relationship because of adultery as some contend or because of incest as others contend, the Holy Spirit still referred to this relationship as "marriage," and there is no evidence in the context that He was speaking accommodatively. It was not RIGHT, but it was still REAL. The apostle Paul says that when a wife "departs" from her husband, no matter what the reason, she is "unmarried" (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Thayer defines the word "depart" (chorizo) to mean: "to separate, divide, part, put asunder. . . Mt. xix. 6; Mk. x. 9.... Mid. and 1 aor. pass. with a reflex. signif to separate one's self from, to depart a. to leave a husband or wife: of divorce, 1 Co. vii. 11, 15 _ b. to depart, go away."[6] Arndt and Gingrich report in their lexicon that the word was often used in marriage contracts in the Greek papyri.[7] This is the same word that Jesus used when He said that man is not to "put asunder" what God has joined together (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). Therefore, Paul teaches that divorce is POSSIBLE even though it is not PERMISSIBLE. Arndt and Gingrich define the word "unmarried" (agamos) to mean: "an unmarried man or woman: of both 1 Cor 7:8 _ Of men vs. 32 _ of women _ 1 Cor 7:34 _ of divorced women 1 Cor 7:11."[8] This word is used four times in the same context (1 Corinthians 7:8, 11, 32, 34), and yet some would have us believe that it does not really mean "unmarried" in verse 11. I believe that Maurice Lusk is absolutely correct when he writes: It is the contention of this writer that it is a flagrant violation of language and reasoning to argue that a person is divorced and yet married to the person from whom he/she is divorced. A person may be divorced unscripturally, but he/she is yet divorced; and a person divorced from another person is not married to that person. This business of insisting that one may be divorced "in the eyes of men" and not divorced "in the eyes of God" is nonsense. God may not approve of a given action (divorce or whatever), but that does not mean that the action does not occur because God does not approve of it. A divorce without scriptural grounds is yet a divorce and renders the person divorced "unmarried." The argument being advanced here is that: "All actions not approved of by God become non-actions or actions which do not occur." If this is the case, then is it legitimate in any sense to speak of an action as having occurred when in actuality it did not occur? It is far better to take the language of a given text as meaning what it says (i.e. married means married, divorced means divorced), than to play this game of semantical gymnastics wherein words do not mean what they mean.[9] The idea that an innocent "put away" person is not really "put away" is just not true. When one is divorced for any reason (scriptural or unscriptural), one becomes a "put away" person, and Jesus says "he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18b; cf. Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Romans 7:3a). ------------ [*] I know that some strenuously object to the terminology "mental divorce" and that they believe that more is required than just a "mental decision." I use the terminology "mental divorce" accommodatively. Perhaps it would be better to describe this view as the "post-civil-divorce divorce position." [**] All of the "let not" statements in the ASV version of the NT mean "may not" rather than "cannot" (cf. Mt. 6:3; Lk. 21:21; Jn. 14:1, 27; Rom. 6:12; 14:3, 16; Eph. 4:26; 1 Tim. 5:16; Jas. 1:7; Mt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9) ------------------- Notes: [1] Ken Cheatham, "Barnett-Cheatham Discussion on Divorce and Remarriage," The Gospel Anchor, V (June 1979), 301. [2] Ken Cheatham, 299. [3] Marshall Patton, "Patton-Phillips Debate," Searching the Scriptures, XXVIII (March 1987), 342-343. [4] Gene Frost, "Mental Marriages/Mental Divorces," The Gospel Anchor, VIII (May 1982), 269. [5] Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950), 75. [6] Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 674. [7] William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 890 [8] Arndt and Gingrich, 4. See also Thayer, 3. [9] Maurice W. Lusk, III, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Teachings of Jesus and Paul (Atlanta: Guild of Scribes, 1982), 44-45. (concluded next week) ___________________________________________ News & Notes I apologize for the delay in the bulletin. On February 28, I drove to Louisiana to "try out" there for a preaching position and also preached the following week in Mississippi, so didn't arrive back home until March 12. Robert ("Barney") Combs who has been mentioned several times, due to his health problems, passed away March 16. He would have been 81 years old April 22. His funeral will be held 11:00 AM Wednesday at the Cleveland and Gofus Funeral Home in Avondale, Pennsylvania, which is located at 221-223 Pennsylvania Avenue (same as Route 41) and the corner of 3rd Street. There will also be a viewing this Tuesday from 7-9 PM and Wednesday from 10-11 AM. Let us pray that God will comfort the family and friends. Barney had been a member of the Avondale church of Christ. ________________________________________ evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (610) 925-3567 e-mail: tedwards@onemain.com web site: http://home.onemain.com/~tedwards/go ________________________________________