"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1
Pet. 4:11). "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging
them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no
profit, but to the subverting of the hearers" (2 Tim. 2:14).
If we can put the current controversy over God, marriage, and
government in its proper context biblically and historically,
it will help us to adhere to Bible authority and to avoid
striving over words to no profit.
A new cycle of apostasy is eating away at the foundations
of Bible authority with flagrant false doctrines on marriage
and on fellowship (unity-in-doctrinal-diversity), with the
positive philosophy of preaching, with rampant worldliness,
with denials of the literal truth of events in Genesis, and
with denials of the eternal torment of hell. Meanwhile, some
of us pay less and less attention to these dangers which
destroy the authority of Scripture while we concentrate on
side issues among brethren who uphold the authority of
Scripture in opposition to the current apostasy.
[FN
1] We are fiddling while Rome burns!
This panel discussion can help propel us over the precipice
of factionalism, or it can help us to regain our focus and our
balance, to regroup as fast friends rather than to fracture as
bitter enemies, and to renew our determination to "fight the
good fight of faith" rather than fighting each other (1 Tim.
6:12). May God bless our efforts so that we will defeat Satan
rather than ourselves!
"What Saith the
Scripture?"
The Bible sets forth the principles, precepts, or
perimeters of divine law on marriage. We must always ask,
"What saith the scripture?" (Rom. 4:3).
Our panel topic directs us to pay special attention to the
relationship between God, marriage, and government.
Divine law on marriage may be stated in three simple
points: A person may marry if never married before (as Adam
and Eve, Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-5), if his mate is dead (Rom.
7:2-3), or if he put away his mate for fornication (Matt.
19:9). In short, God’s law of marriage says one man for one
woman as long as the two live, the only exception being that
an innocent party may put away a fornicator and marry another
mate.
Before there was man, marriage, or
government, there was the eternal God (Gen. 1:1). Before there
was civil government, God created man and woman and joined
them in marriage: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and
his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be
one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). [FN2] God’s law on marriage predates
civil government and takes precedence over the changes and
corruptions common to such governments and to social standards. Malachi 2:14-16 shows
that when a man casts away his mate and gets
another one, divine law does not accept this charade. God
does not dissolve the marriage vows, the binding nature of the
marriage union, or the obligations of the marriage covenant witnessed by
God.
Therefore, He hates "putting away." [FN 3]
The divorce craze of Moses’ day was curbed with severe
limits by Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Within those limits, men who
divorced considered themselves free to remarry, and the women
put away were permitted to remarry.
Deuteronomy 24 loomed in the background each time Jesus
taught the Jews on marriage, but he based his law directly on
the foundation of Genesis 2:24.
[FN 4] In Matthew 5:32 Jesus rescinded Moses’ law when he
said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause
of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever
marrieth her that is divorced committeth adultery." The man
who put away his wife could not free her to marry a new mate.
If she married another man, they went to the bed of adultery.
[FN 5]
With Deuteronomy 24
again in the background, Jesus laid down his own law
based on Genesis 2:24 when he said,
"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 doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19:3-9).
The same rule applies equally
to the man and to the woman: When a divorce occurs not for fornication, each one must
know that taking a new mate constitutes adultery. The exception means
that when fornication occurs, only the innocent mate is authorized
to marry a new mate. [FN 6]
Mark 10:3-12 is similar to Matthew 19 with Deuteronomy 24
in the background and with Jesus making it clear that the same
rule applies to both the man and the woman who are divorced.
Divine law takes precedence over human law when Jesus said,
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,
committeth adultery against her." This is contrary to both the
law of Moses and to Roman law, which held that this man was
released from his original wife and committed no wrong against
her by remarrying. It is also clear that divine law takes
precedence over human law when Jesus speaks of the woman
divorcing a man, for which the Jews made no provision.
Luke 16:18 also has Deuteronomy 24 in the background, shows
the same rule applies to both man and woman after divorce, but
omits the exception. [FN 7]
Resisting Apostasy While Avoiding Factionalism
God’s people face the challenge of resisting apostasy while
also avoiding factionalism. This requires spiritual strength,
maturity, and balance.
"Let your moderation be known to all men. The Lord is at
hand" (Phil. 4:5).
We are in the throes of an apostasy because Homer Hailey
and others have denied that the divine law of marriage given
by Christ applies to the world at large, claiming it applies
only to saints. Jim Puterbaugh, Don and Jerry Bassett, and
others teach that God permits people to remarry no matter why
they are divorced. Such teaching makes a mockery of God’s law
on marriage.
[FN 8]
Faithful saints continue to embrace God’s rule of one man
for one woman for life, with only one exception. Within those
perimeters, there are differences in semantics and in how to
analyze difficult cases. Legitimate points are made on both
sides of such questions, but none of us can write a set of
rules to cover and settle all of these points and variations
of views. People involved in these situations and local
churches where they worship will have to make the best
decisions they can in the light of the simple principles or
perimeters given by God. That is nothing new.
J. T. Smith, Connie W. Adams, Weldon Warnock, Greg Gwin,
Donnie Rader, Mike Willis, Harry Osborne, Ron Halbrook, and
all other saints committed to the truth on marriage sometimes
differ in semantics and in how we analyze difficult cases.
There are dozens of such differences, not just one. No two
brethren will ever see eye to eye on all such matters. [FN9]
Conscientious brethren united in the truth on marriage hold
different views on side issues, details, legal steps, and
difficult cases. Brethren have differed on whether 1. the
innocent mate must initiate civil divorce proceedings, 2.
fornication must be stated as the cause in civil divorce
papers, 3. there must be witnesses to the fornication, 4. the
innocent mate must countersue if the guilty party sues for
divorce, 5. a faithful, innocent mate may remarry if her
spouse gets his civil divorce papers one day and enters an
adulterous marriage the next day, 6. mates may reconcile after
a divorce for fornication, 7. a put-away fornicator may
remarry even after his former mate dies, 8. in the case of an
innocent party who initiates divorce proceedings for
fornication in one jurisdiction, and the fornicator later
files in another jurisdiction where the court rules first, the
innocent mate may remarry.
What about a couple constantly fighting until they split
the blanket, go their separate ways, and marry new mates?
Based on the simple and straightforward statement of Jesus in
Matthew 5:32, faithful brethren reject these waiting game
scenarios where a person abandons his marriage vows and
duties, then waits until his mate remarries and commits
adultery, and then claims the right to divorce or repudiate
his mate a second time by some sort of mental gymnastics. This
is called "the waiting game" with "a second putting away" or
"mental divorce," and none of the parties to the current
discussion countenance such treachery, foolishness, and
hypocrisy.
Overreaction, Obsession, and Factionalism
In some quarters, alarm over "the waiting game with mental
divorce" is breeding a spirit of overreaction, obsession, and
factionalism. Every convoluted or difficult case does not
involve the waiting game or mental divorce, but these phrases
are being shot around helter-skelter like assault weapons to
condemn any and every difference or nuance until they have
about lost all meaning. As a result, several matters need to
be addressed by those who are pressing these charges.
First, who among us promotes and defends waiting games,
mental divorces, adultery, and compromise? Some brethren
indict anyone who differs with them on any of the questions
listed above, no matter how strongly he upholds the truth on
marriage and opposes the current apostasy. [FN 10]
Second, are the men who make these charges going to accuse
each other when they differ over similar questions? They need
to tell us how they are going to stop this snowball of
charges, counter-charges, fracturing, dividing, and
factionalism. I recently asked one brother on this panel that
question and he said he did not know! Two men who differed
with me learned in our conversation that they differed over a
similar point and had no explanation for why they might need
to separate from me but not from each other!
Third, there is tragic irony in the convoluted and
destructive course some men have followed who have been so
quick and sharp in charging faithful men with embracing the
waiting game, mental divorce, adultery, compromise, and
apostasy. Some have canceled meetings scheduled with faithful
men over these intemperate charges and brought in men
associated with current trends leading into real compromise
and apostasy. Some have openly declared they will not work
with faithful men who do not see eye to eye with them on one
of these points, then have held multiple meetings working with
men openly associated with current trends leading into real
compromise and apostasy.
Some are fracturing the faithful while extending the right
hand of fellowship to men who have manifested the spirit of
compromise and apostasy.
[FN 11]
This phase of the so-called "mental
divorce" issue needs to be addressed in the light of 2
Corinthians 6:14-18, 2 John 9-11, and Galatians 2:11-14. [FN
12]
Conclusion: Unity in Truth NOT Factions in Opinions
The Bible is clear. A person may marry if never married
before (as Adam and Eve, Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-5), if his mate
is dead (Rom. 7:2-3), or if he put away his mate for
fornication (Matt. 19:9). In short, God’s law of marriage says
one man for one woman as long as the two live, the only
exception being that an innocent party may put away a
fornicator and marry another mate. Among brethren seriously
committed to these three simple principles of divine law, let
us forbear with each other when we differ over some details,
legalities, and difficult cases. If we emphasize those simple
divine principles and avoid pressing all of our conclusions
and opinions about unrevealed details, we will be united in
the truth rather than fractured over peripheral matters.
Five mature thinking brethren gave this reaction to a
recent debate on some of these matters. They said the
disputants were mostly united when explaining what is
explicitly revealed, but differences came to light in their
conclusions and comments about details not revealed. What an
interesting assessment! The more we emphasize what is
explicitly revealed and the less we press our conclusions
about unrevealed details, the more we will be united and the
less we will create confusion, controversy, and
factionalism.
I do not appeal to emotionalism or political expediency but
to Scripture.
I appeal for Bible-based, Bible-balanced unity. "If any man
speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11). "Of
these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the
Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the
subverting of the hearers" (2 Tim. 2:14). "Watch, stand fast
in the faith, be brave, be strong. Let all that you do be done
with love" (1 Cor. 16:13-14, NKJV).
FOOTNOTES
1. Since the late 1980's,
faithful brethren have been grieved to see a new cycle of
apostasy developing with flagrant false doctrines on divorce
and remarriage playing a key role. These cycles follow
patterns. Apostasy involves departures from the faith which
undermine the authority of God’s Word and thus divide God’s
people (1 Tim. 4:1; 1 Jn. 2:19). After the first steps and
stage of a new apostasy, some brethren seek the middle ground
of compromise. At some point, another phase occurs in which
other brethren become so alarmed as to overreact by treating
differences among brethren equally committed to the truth as
equivalent to apostasy.
This latter phase is Satan’s tactic to divide God’s remnant
into warring factions. Our focus shifts from the apostasy
sweeping the brotherhood as we bite and devour one another.
Thus, the remnant resisting the apostasy divides and dwindles.
Satan smiles as the apostasy grows even stronger. He seeks to
destroy souls through the opposite extremes of liberalism and
factionalism.
2. When a man and a woman privately commit themselves to be
married, and when they make a public promise in the legal and
customary way, God Himself witnesses or ratifies this covenant
so as to make it binding for life (Mal.
2:14; Rom. 13:1-4). Civil government records the covenant
ratified by God rather than the other way around. "What God
therefore hath joined together, let not man put asunder"
(Matt. 19:6). Man can desert his marital post and duties with
or without legal sanction, but he cannot dissolve the actual
bond and obligations set in place by God, just as a soldier
cannot dissolve his obligations by deserting his post.
3. People walk away from their marriage duties by
treachery, but this does not dissolve the vows, the covenant,
and the duties owed to God and to the mate in keeping with the
marriage union joined by God.
4. Indecent conduct just short of adultery was the only
ground allowed; the man had to sign a document giving his wife
the right to marry another man; and he could never get her
back after her remarriage, even if the second husband
died.
5. The first man was held responsible both for his sin and
for creating a stumblingblock for his wife. The
waiting-game-with-mental-divorce says he is not accountable
for her adultery but can free himself from the marriage bond
to his wife after her adultery. No, Jesus holds him
accountable for her adultery. The man is not held accountable
for her adultery if he put her away for fornication.
6. When civil government allows divorce contrary to God’s
law, God does not release the couple from their marriage vows,
covenant, or union. When civil government allows remarriage
contrary to God’s law, God does not join the parties in
marriage
