____________________________________________________ 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 10, 2002 ____________________________________________________ The Rights of an Innocent Put-Away Person (Part 2 of 2) by Kevin Kay Jesus' statement "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery AGAINST HER (emphasis mine--ksk): and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:11-12) is often cited by the proponents of this position to show that an innocent "put away" person is not really "put away." They argue that the husband commits adultery against his first wife, even though he has "divorced" her and "married" another woman, because they are still really married in the eyes of God. Though this argument sounds reasonable, at least on the surface, I believe that it has some serious difficulties. First, it contradicts the way that the Bible consistently uses the term "put away" (apoluo), as we have already demonstrated. Second, though the weight of the evidence seems to suggest that the phrase "against her" refers to the "put away" wife, there is at least some evidence to suggest that it refers to the "other woman." Alexander Balmain Bruce writes: "The ep auten at the end of ver. 11 may mean either against, to the prejudice of, her (the first wife), or with her (the second). The former view is taken by the leading modern exegetes, the latter by Victor Ant., Euthy., Theophy., and, among moderns, Ewald and Bleek."[10] Berry translates the phrase ep auten as "against her" in his Interlinear,[11] and Marshall translates it as "with her" in his.[12] Obviously, if the phrase ep auten should be translated "WITH HER" (i.e. the "other woman"), this argument is invalidated. Third, even if the phrase "against her" refers to the first wife, this does not prove that the first marriage has not really been dissolved by divorce. After all, the apostle Paul says that following a divorce, no matter what the reason, one is unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Well, how can a husband commit adultery against his first wife if they are really divorced and no longer married to one another? The apostle Paul answers that question. Paul says that a woman who has a husband is bound by law to her husband "for as long as he lives" (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39). Please note that Paul does not say that a woman is bound to her husband for as long as they continue to love each other, or for as long as there are no irreconcilable differences or for as long as they remain married to each other, but for as long as he lives. Paul also says that if while the husband lives, a woman be "joined" to another man, she shall be called an adulteress (Romans 7:3). The phrase, "be joined" (ginomai), literally means "to become" and refers to marriage in this context. Thus, the apostle Paul contemplates a situation in which a woman is bound by law to one man while she is married to another, and that is why she is an adulteress. When a husband divorces his wife unscripturally and marries another woman, he commits adultery against his first wife, not because they are still really married to one another, but because they are bound by law to one another.[13] In addition to its faulty presupposition, this position has other problems as well. It assumes that there can be more than one "putting away" -- one "in the eyes of man" and the other "in the eyes of God." But Jesus speaks of only one. This position also assumes that the innocent "put away" person has something to "put away." The term, "put away" (apoluo), means "1. set free, release, pardon. . . . 2. let go, send away, dismiss...a. divorce, send away...one's wife, or betrothed. .. . b. dismiss, send away...."[14] The Bible speaks about "putting away" a person, but after the first marriage has been dissolved, there is no one for the innocent person to let go, send away, or dismiss. The innocent mate cannot dissolve the marriage relationship, because that has already been dissolved, and he cannot dissolve the marriage "bond," because only God can do that. Furthermore, this position changes the Lord's order in Matthew 19:9. If we take the passage at face value, the proponents of this position change the Lord's order of MARRIAGE, FORNICATION, DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE to MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, FORNICATION. The Bible teaches that fornication must be the CAUSE for divorce, not the CONSEQUENCE of divorce. If we cannot change the Lord's order in Mark 16:16, we cannot change the Lord's order in Matthew 19:9. The arguments that I have made thus far, I believe, demonstrate that the position that an innocent "put away" person may remarry while the first mate is still living rests upon a faulty presupposition. But perhaps it is not the presupposition that has given rise to this fallacious concept but rather what I will call the "presupposition behind the presupposition." Some have assumed as a foregone conclusion that God would never require an innocent person to live in celibacy. But this is just not true. It is possible for people to fall into circumstances, through no fault of their own, that require them to remain celibate if they are to be faithful to God. What of the innocent wife whose husband suffers from some physical or mental illness that makes it impossible for him to be a husband to her? What of the innocent wife whose husband has been incapacitated by an accident? What of the innocent wife whose husband is an MIA, or a POW, or a convict serving a life sentence? What of the innocent wife who has been divorced, through no fault of her own, and her first husband never remarries? These are innocent, but God's law does not allow them to remarry. It does not seem fair to me, but that does not change God's law. But someone says, "Fornication was not involved in those situations, and it is in this situation!" We must remember, however, that fornication on the part of one's mate does not give one the right to remarry; it gives one the right to divorce one's mate. It is only divorce for fornication that gives one the right to remarry. When an innocent person is "put away," there are at least two reasons why he may not remarry. First, the divorce was not for fornication, and this is the only scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage. Second, the right to remarry following divorce is not given to a "put away" person. But some argue that if the innocent "put away" person cannot remarry when the first mate commits adultery by marrying again, then man's law takes precedence over God's law. One writer says: "I cannot accept the position that the law of God in this matter is regulated by and contingent upon the civil laws of fallible man."[15] Once again this argument assumes that if the divorce is not RIGHT, it's not REAL; and I have already demonstrated that this presupposition is not true. But God's law is not regulated by and contingent upon man's law in this situation. God's law specifically says, "and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18b). We must remember the painful truth that life is not always fair (Ecclesiastes 9:11-12; 10:5-7). Sometimes the innocent suffer because of the sins of others (cf. Exodus 20:5; 1 Kings 21:29). Sometimes innocent people suffer as a result of other's disrespect for God's law on marriage (cf. Ezra 10:1-4, 18-19, 44). But if God built a hedge around the innocent so that they never suffered, many would serve God out of CONVENIENCE and not CONVICTION (cf. Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6). My heart goes out to the innocent who must suffer because others have not respected God's law on marriage. But I cannot change God's law. I can, however, assure them that the glory to be revealed in the next life "beyond the sunset" will more than make up for their sacrifice and suffering in this life "under the sun" (Romans 8:18). (Article first published in Is It Lawful?: A Comprehensive Study of Divorce, 1989, pp. 329-337) _________ Notes [10] Marcus Dods, "The Synoptic Gospels," The Expositor's Greek Testament, W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. (Grand Rapids; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 409. [11] George Ricker Berry, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 162. [12] Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), 182. [13] For a more detailed analysis, see chapter 17. [14] Arndt and Gingrich, 96. See also Thayer, 65-66. [15] Weldon Warnock, "`Divorce and Remarriage' Response," Searching the Scriptures, XXVII (March 1986), 61. ___________________________________________ Hardheaded Preachers by Allan Turner Some preachers have felt the need to modernize their preaching. Influenced by the "feel good about yourself" gospel of Self-Love that is so popular today, some have begun to accentuate the positive and de-emphasize the negative. As a result, some among us are openly advertising something called "Positive Christianity." Now, before I get branded by some of you who read this as a "promoter of negativism," let me say that I am not against preaching what is commonly referred to as the positive aspects of the gospel of Christ. God forbid! What I am against, however, is the careless and erroneous way in which some have divided God's Word. Frankly, I do not believe that dividing God's Word into different parts, one part promoting "Positive Christianity" and the other "Negative Christianity" is what the apostle Paul had in mind in 2 Timothy 2:15. In truth, God's Word is neither "positive" nor "negative." It is, instead, both positive and negative. In other words, it's a total package. Take the Ten Commandments for instance. The "Positive Ten Commandments," and you realize, of course, that there is no such thing, would only involve remembering the Sabbath and honoring one's father and mother. All eight of the remaining commandments would either be de-emphasized, or totally eliminated. So, in theory, the end result of Positive Ten Commandmentism would be an idolatrous, polytheistic, murderous, adulterous, thieving, lying, covetous people who would, without shame, take the name of the only true and living God in vain. Furthermore, I think it would be safe to surmise that such a people, in addition to soon forgetting the Sabbath, would also have no respect for their mothers and fathers. So, so much for Positive Ten Commandmentism. The careful student of God's Word knows that love (which incidentally is something most people would identify as "positive") cannot really be understood without considering the subject of sacrifice (something incidentally that many people today would consider "negative"). Likewise, salvation (a very "positive" subject) must be understood within the context of repentance (which is something most people today think is very "negative"). Consequently, when it comes to the religion of Christ, what is of ultimate importance is not whether something is positive or negative. Instead, what is important is whether it is true or false, right or wrong! In reality, whether one preaches the positive and de-emphasizes the negative, or preaches the negative and de-emphasizes the positive, in either case, one is not declaring "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), and this is exactly my point. In 2 Timothy 4:2-5, the apostle Paul charged Timothy to: "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry" (NKJV). One simply cannot miss it. Paul did not say that God's Word must be accommodated to every new concept that comes along. What he said was "Preach the word." Therefore, although I've said it before, I will now say it again: There is obviously something very suspicious about a group of Christians who turn their sail to every wind that blows. And make no mistake about it, such will be "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, [who] in cunning craftiness...lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14). As more and more Christians clamor for "Positive Christianity," it will become increasingly more difficult for preachers attempting to preach the whole counsel of God to maintain their integrity. It will be much easier to go with the flow of opinions, values and fads of the masses. But thank God for hardheaded preachers who, like the prophets of old, will not bow or bend to the totems of this world. In Ezekiel 3:8-9, the prophet, who has been sent by God to address a rebellious people, was told by God: "Behold I have made your face strong against their faces, and your forehead strong against their foreheads. Like adamant stone, harder than flint, I have made your forehead; do not be afraid of them, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they are a rebellious house" (NKJV). Thank God for hardheaded preachers who do not have to test the winds of public sentiment before they decide what they are going to preach. Thank God for hardheaded preachers who will "Preach the word!" Thank God for hardheaded preachers who will "be ready in season and out of season." Thank God for hardheaded preachers who will "convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." Thank God for hardheaded preachers who, with God's help, will save not only themselves, but those that hear them (cf. 1 Timothy 4:16). It is my prayer that God will continue to bless us with hardheaded preachers who won't shy away from using "great plainness of speech" in their preaching and teaching (2 Corinthians 3:12). ________________________________________ evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (610) 925-3567 e-mail: tedwards@onemain.com web site: http://home.onemain.com/~tedwards/go ________________________________________