Some Thoughts on Divorce
and Remarriage
Weldon Warnock
The following article was prompted by an article
written by my good friend, brother Connie Adams, entitled,
"Emotional Arguments," which included a segment on divorce and
remarriage. It appeared in the February 3, 2005 issue of Truth
Magazine, He has written a response that appears in this issue. I
invite you to study each article carefully and
prayerfully.
Let no one surmise that because of this exchange
that Connie and I have become enemies and have ostracized one
another. We remain close friends after more than fifty-four years
when we first met at Florida College. We have preached together,
prayed together, socialized together, laughed and cried together,
and performed on stage professionally together in country music
while at Florida College. You might say there has been a lot of
togetherness. And, besides all of these things, his oldest son,
Wilson, married our daughter, Julie. So, we’ll just go on together.
We enter into this cordial exchange to try to come to a better
understanding of the word of God. You will notice that both Connie
and I show disdain for, and repulsion toward, factionalism. Above
all, we walk together because we are united on thee basic truths
Jesus revealed on marriage, though we differ on one or two details
like any two brethren might do (cf. Amos 3:3; Eph.
4;1-6).
Many try to justify their beliefs and practices
by emotional arguments. This is true in the marriage, divorce, and
remarriage controversy. They prove nothing as to the right and wrong
of a matter. I have never attempted to uphold my position on MDR by
human emotions. Due to certain circumstances, some divorced people
must live in celibacy. This would be true of those who divorce when
fornication is not involved, whether it is the one who puts away or
the one put away (Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). When both husband and
wife disrupt the marriage consensually, neither may marry another,
even if one of them commits fornication. That is the so-called
"waiting game."
However, to affirm that an innocent spouse may
remarry when his/her mate commits fornication is not a waiting game;
neither is it an emotional argument, but rather a biblical
one.
Fornication and
Death
Someone says: "There is no Scripture that
authorizes a put away person to remarry because Jesus said
‘whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery’"
(Matt. 5:32). I believe this as strongly as anyone.
But would there not be some qualifications or
exceptions to this statement?
I ask: (1) What if an innocent, divorced woman’s
husband died a few months or so after she was put away by him? Could
this put away woman marry? (2) What if she was divorced like the
situation in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11? Could she remarry her husband?
Remember, Jesus said, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery," but his statement does not preclude all put
away spouses under all circumstances from remarrying. The two
previous situations prove this. So, Jesus’ statement, "Whosoever
marries her that is put away commits adultery," is not an absolute,
since there are exceptions. Jesus was speaking of a woman who is
divorced where fornication is not involved. Read Luke 16:18 and
observe that not only the divorced woman commits adultery when she
marries another, but also the man who divorced her. Fornication is
not mentioned in Luke 16:18, so neither party may remarry without
commiting adultery. Yes, whosoever marries her/him commits adultery
when no fornication is involved.
Most brethren would say that an innocent woman
(or man) who has been divorced may remarry when her husband dies,
based on Romans 7:2-3, though he commits fornication after the civil
divorce. Why is it that one may make an exception to what Jesus said
concerning the put away woman in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, based on
Romans 7:2-3, but no one, according to some, may use Jesus’
exception in Matthew 19:9 for this same woman whose former husband
is living in adultery? Some say you may use Romans 7:2-3 to justify
remarriage, if the fornicating husband dies, but you may not use
Matthew 19:9 if he lives. Strange!
There are brethren who teach that fornication
committed after a civil divorce, even an unscriptural divorce, is
after the fact of the civil divorce and, therefore, not a legitimate
reason for the innocent party to remarry. Why? Because they say no
put away person may remarry, but they approve the put away person to
remarry when the one who puts her away dies.
Is not the one put away still put away? Hence,
they are saying that a man who divorces his faithful, innocent wife
and then marries another woman that he remains the heavenly bound
husband of his first wife. The first wife he put away is still bound
to this fornicating degenerate, we are told.
Jewish Women
The Jewish women in the first century,
especially in Palestine, were always put away by their husbands. How
did they then put away their fornicating husband, other than by the
action of dismissal and repudiation, which the
Greek word apoluo means in regard to divorce
(Thayer 66)? Jesus allowed the
faithful wife to do whatever she could do or
needed to do in putting away her fornicating husband (Mark 10:12;
Matt. 19:9). I offer several references that show that the Jewish
women could not divorce their husbands, especially in Palestine, but
were always divorced by the husband. We notice:
In their commentaries on Matthew the following
men stated that among the Jews the husband divorced (put away the
wife: Lenski (734); Hendriksen (305); Barclay (2:197). There is the
Dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Hastings (627). Dr. Ralph
Earle in Word Meanings in the New Testament,
wrote: "Among the Jews a woman could not divorce
her husband" (229).
Josephus, Jewish historian, corroborates this
Jewish practice (Book 15, Chapter 8, 880-881). Of course, what they
said is what the Bible teaches (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 5:31; 19:7,
9).
In light of the position of the Jewish women
being always the put away in Jewish culture, how could they do what
Jesus said women could do in Mark 10:12? This is the question to
which I have never had a satisfactory answer.
I understand she could ask for a writing of
divorcement to be granted unto her, but she still became the put
away. How could she use Mark 10:12, other than by the action of
repudiation and disavowal?
The Courthouse
In my opinion the whole crux of this controversy
is over getting to the courthouse, at least in the United States.
The innocent party must file or counter-sue for a divorce or he/she
would be the put away and then not permitted to marry, as some
reason. However, in Kentucky, as well as some other states, you
cannot counter-sue, so says a Bowling Green, Kentucky lawyer who
practices family law. He wrote: "There is no counter-suing." This
being the fact of the matter, I suppose it really is a rush to the
courthouse, if no innocent put-away person may remarry when
fornication is involved.
What would you tell an innocent person who
surprisingly gets his/her divorce papers in the mail and then learns
the marriage partner is going to marry another? Or what would you
tell the soldier who comes home from the war and his wife has
divorced him and is married to another man? Then there are those
whose fornicating spouse divorces them and they had no money to
counter-sue in the states where permissible? May these persons do
what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9? May he/she put away scripturally
according to Matthew
19:9 who was unscripturally divorced? Does an
unscriptural divorce prohibit an innocent spouse from scripturally
putting away for the cause of fornication? Brethren, I did not
introduce the preceding situations as emotional arguments, but
rather what would you tell them, biblically?
So, as some improperly reason, God is bound and
regulated by what an ungodly spouse does in a loose, permissive
court. Surely this could not be true! By the way, most courts in the
United States will not permit divorce for adultery, but for
irreconcilable differences or incompatibility. As one preacher said
in response to this point: "God knows." Sounds a little like
so-called "mental divorce" to me! Let me add in reference to
marriage and divorce, we have to satisfy the legal requirements of
civil government. We are to obey the laws of the land (Rom. 13) as
long as they do not violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).
Marriage Is
Permanent
Yes, Jesus said: "Whosoever shall put away his
wife (or husband, ww), except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery." I believe this with all my heart and
have taught it all the years I have preached the gospel. Whenever
fornication is committed against a faithful, innocent spouse (Mark
10:11), the innocent party may remarry (Matt. 19:9).
The adultery in Mark 10:11 is against (epi) his
former wife. Translations having "against" are: KJV, NKJV, ASV,
NASB, NIV, Williams, Goodspeed, and others. Then there is Thayer’s
Greek English Lexicon that has "against"
(235). Therefore, whenever a man commits
fornication after divorcing his wife, he commits adultery against
his former wife. She may then put him away (dismiss, repudiate) for
fornication and marry another (Matt. 19:9). The same would be true
with the husband in Mark 10:12.
I believe that marriage is permanent and when a
marriage is broken up, one or both marriage partners sin. I believe
that fornication is the only exception for divorce and remarriage
for the innocent party.
Clarification
Some clarification needs to be made about a few
expressions that we hear frequently. First, is about this second
putting away argument some use.
There is only one scriptural putting away; that
authorized by the Lord. Of course, there are unscriptural divorces.
An unscriptural divorce does not nullify the right of an innocent
party to scripturally put away a fornicating mate. To illustrate and
help us see this matter more clearly, a person might be
unscripturally baptized, like at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5), but the
second one, yes, the one baptism (Eph. 4:5) would be the scriptural
one approved by God. Second, is sequence. A scriptural divorce, as
just stated, fits the biblical sequence of (1) fornication, (2)
scriptural putting away by innocent spouse, and (3) right of
remarriage by innocent party. Third, is "mental divorce." I don’t
believe, nor teach, that one may just think away his/her spouse. The
Bible says, "Put away" not "think away." This expression means
different things to different people and can leave the wrong
impression. One man asked, "This mental divorce thing; does it mean
that if my wife goes crazy that I can put her away?" The expression
is misleading and prejudicial.
There are good, honorable brethren for whom I
have the utmost respect, who disagree with some of the things I have
written in this article who are not contentious or divisive. I
believe the feeling is mutual. Let brotherly love
continue!
Addendum on
Factionalism
Some brethren need to quit painting everybody a
heretic and a fasle teacher, not worthy of fellowship, who may have
some disagreements along the lines which this article addresses.
What we don’t need is another splinter group in the church, but it
looks like it is coming or has already arrived. Oh, how I remember
the way it used to be thirty to forty years ago when brethren could
disagree on some things and not bludgeon one another to
death.
Sadly, factionalism or partyism has become far
more prevalent among us. Some brethren are obsessed with MDR. They
accuse those who disagree with them on any point on this issue as
false teachers and the churches who use them as compromisers of
truth. Meetings are cancelled, fellowship is broken and the
"heretics" are stigmatized by way of websites, e-mails, bulletins,
journals, and word of mouth. There is no tolerance or compassion.
What is puzzling to me is why do some now make all the particulars
of MDR, like in this article, such a major issue that brethren
formerly showed tolerance? Why all of a sudden is there such
hostility and enmity? We had very little controversy over this
specific issue before the computers came along and "loose cannons"
got possession of them and started "firing
away" at anything and everybody.
They are like a kid with a new toy. The church
would be better off if their computers were taken and thrown into
the trash dump, providing they could not get their hands on another
one.
A factionist, whoever he might be, who imposes
his opinions and personal ideas, is guilty of causing dissensions
and division in the church of the Lord. We must be real sure that
what we urge and insist that brethren believe and practice is the
absolue truth of the gospel. Heresy
(factionalism) is a work of the flesh (Gal.
5:20), and any of us who sow discord among brethren displeases our
heavenly Father (Prov. 6:19).
Factionalism, extremism, yes, hobbyism, like a
malignant tumor, emaciate the body of Christ.
A good church can be ruined by factionists in a
few years or less, having dwindled down in size that they could meet
in a one-car garage with the car in it. Whether MDR or other issues,
factionalism stunts church growth, stifles joy, disturbs the peace,
and creates self-righteous bigotry.
87 Ormond Dr., Scottsville, Kentucky 42164
[Truth Magazine XLIX, 9 (May 5, 2005):268-270]
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reply
to "Some Thoughts on Divorce and
Remarriage"
Connie W. Adams
My dear friend, Weldon Warnock has responded to
my article in Truth Magazine entitled "Emotional Arguments" which
appeared in the February 3, 2005 issue.
As I would have expected, Weldon has clearly
stated his views and has written in a kind and brotherly way. Over
the years, we have been as close as any brothers in the flesh could
ever be. He is a good student of the word and an able preacher of it
as well. Our lives have been brought together as entertainers,
preachers, in debates, in publishing work (both with Searching the
Scriptures and Truth Magazine), and now we are grandpas-in-law! We
don’t intend to stop being friends.
I concur in the warnings Weldon has sounded
about factionalism. The tendency to splinter and then splinter the
splinter, over every point of difference is much in evidence these
days. The drawing of lines and choosing of sides early in any
controversy, does a disservice to the cause of Christ. It does not
become any of us to develop tunnel vision and focus on one issue to
the neglect of other needed things. Neither is it helpful to array
brethren against one another and seek to drive wedges. None of us
reacts very well to attempts to treat us as puppets on a string who
jump when the string is pulled by some nervous brother who seems to
know exactly what you need to say, to whom, when to say it, and how
to go about it.
This is not the first time Weldon and I have
openly differed over this issue of divorce and remarriage. In
1985’when Weldon was writing the question and answer column in
Searching the Scriptures, his reply to a question on this subject
prompted a response from me (so I guess turn about is fair play) and
led to an exchange between Weldon and Jim Deason. Each of us said
what we had to say and then moved on to other things. Most of the
material published in Truth Magazine over the last few years on this
subject has presented the view which I hold. Very little has
appeared to the contrary. In July 2004,at Bowling Green, Kentucky,
we offered an open forum discussion on this subject following a
panel presentation by four respected men. Mike Willis has published
every article I have ever sent him, including those which touched on
this issue.
I see no need for a lengthy review of all Weldon
has written. We stand on the same ground on much of what is
involved. But there are differences which neither of us can
ignore.
Emotional Arguments
We both agree that truth is not settled by
emotional arguments. Weldon says his argument is scriptural, not
emotional. But then we are asked what to tell a person who receives
divorce papers in the mail, or a soldier home from the war whose
wife has divorced him and married another man, or a woman who has no
money to counter-sue. These cases do stir emotions, whatever
disavowals are made to the contrary. Whatever I would tell them, or
Weldon, either, would have to be no more nor less than what the few
passages which address this subject have to say.
Exceptions
We are told that the statement "whosoever
marries her that is put away commits adultery" is not an absolute
since there are exceptions. He says these exceptions are (1) death
(Rom. 7:2-3); and (2) a case such as in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 where
one is either to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.
First of all, when death occurs, a marriage bond is severed. There
is no marriage. Second, in the case in 1 Corinthians 7, there is no
third party involved. Two people who were joined by God in the first
place are "reconciled." Now, if I grant that these are exceptions,
since brother Weldon gave us the passages for them, what other
exceptions are there, and where are the passages for
them?
Jewish Women
Weldon argues that it was impossible under
Jewish custom for a woman to divorce her husband since the
initiative was always with the man and that consequently the only
way she could put him away was by some statement of repudiation
(though it had no legal force). Mark 10:11-12 says, "And if a woman
shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she
committeth adultery." Weldon cites several sources on this point.
Roman law did provide for women to divorce their husbands and Mark
wrote his gospel for a Roman audience. Besides that, Jesus taught in
anticipation of the gospel of the kingdom being addressed to a
world-wide audience. It was not just a Jewish gospel. Stauffer
comments on this briefly in the Truth Commentary on Mark 227. I
would hate to take the position that Jesus presented a truth which
was totally useless and impossible for a large segment of
society.
The Courthouse
Weldon thinks that the crux of the matter is who
gets to the courthouse first. I do not believe God is bound by what
ungodly men may rule, but I do believe that we are bound by what God
said about one who is put away having the right to remarry. Customs
and laws which regulate marriage and divorce may vary from place to
place, but in every culture there is a recognized point at which two
people are married and at which one puts away the other.
We both agree that we are obligated to obey the
laws of the land as long as they do not violate, or require us to
violate God’s will. As to generic causes for divorce in most states,
these are designed to include any number of specific reasons. The
irreconcilable difference might well be adultery.
The irretrievable breakdown might be because of
adultery. There is nothing to hinder the one putting away a mate for
adultery from stating that to him/her and/or putting that statement
in writing. That is not just mental, but overt action.
After the Fact
When a divorce has occurred and then later on
one party commits adultery, then it cannot be said that this initial
putting away was for fornication.
What happens after that fact cannot be the cause
of it. According to what the Lord taught, it is the one who puts
away the other (initiating the action), for fornication (the reason
for the action) who has a right to remarry. When divorce takes
place, it is usually a matter of time (waiting) until one or both
will remarry. That is the force of what Jesus said in Matthew
5:31-32 "causeth her to commit adultery." As time passes, the
presumption is that she will marry, or give into a sinful
relationship outside of marriage. If not, then what is the sense in
what Jesus said?
As to "mental divorce," what else can you call
it when two people are already divorced and one remarries and then
the other "in purpose of heart"
puts away that spouse who has remarried? If a
mental decision is what it takes to end a marriage, then does a
mental decision constitute the beginning of one? If two people
purpose in their hearts to marry, are they married at that point and
therefore entitled to the sexual privileges of the marriage bed?
Would you sanction "common law" marriages? Dr. Laura calls that
"shacking up" and she is right. That’s what most everybody used to
call it. If "putting away" only involves "purpose of heart" then why
is that not "thinking away" your mate who has already put you away?
The Bible speaks of the "thoughts and intents" of the heart. "As a
man thinketh in his heart, so is he." How else can you "purpose" in
your heart without "thinking" in your heart? And what other process
of thinking is there besides mental activity?
While we may ponder on the civil aspects of this
issue, and while our hearts may bleed for those who have been abused
and mistreated by being unjustly put away, what Weldon has said
about the permanence of marriage must be taken to heart. God made
his laws on marriage, divorce and remarriage strict, and he did that
on purpose. Marriage is the basic unit of all orderly society. When
families are shaken, so are the nations in which they dwell. And as
this exchange shows, so are churches and so are relations between
brethren. God meant for one man and one woman to be joined in
marriage for life, with one exception and that is
fornication.
I know Weldon joins me in urging our readers to
study this matter with an open mind and an open Bible. Every local
church will have to deal with such problems when they arise on a
case-by-case basis. And every local church will have to decide whom
to invite for meetings and local work using their own best judgment
as to the needs of each congregation.
Final Word
This ends my part of this exchange. I do not
intend to carry on an unending battle. We have both stated our case
the best we could, and I am content to leave it for you to study.
When I preach on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, I shall
continue, as I have in the past, to deal with not only what the
Bible says about it, but will also review various positions which I
hold to be erroneous. Some of these are more dangerous than others.
The brethren who know where I stand and are willing to hear me will
send for me and others will not. And that is all right with
me.
"Strife, seditions and heresies" are all works
of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21).
Strife is friction and it begins within the
heart. It then seeks company and then those of like mind begin to
pull apart from the rest. That is division in motion. That is
"sedition." "Heresies" involves the crystallizing of tenets to give
legitimacy to the division. That becomes "the horse they rode out
on." We must not become one issue people. Hobby horses are dangerous
critters to ride. It is hard to escape the conclusion that some have
become hobby riders when we have websites devoted entirely to this
one issue.
Papers can become unbalanced the same way. In
the minds of some this issue has become a litmus test as to whether
or not some of us can work together in a private publishing business
which is not the church, is not supported by contributions from
churches, and which does not attempt to do the work of the
church.
Should Weldon want a brief rejoinder to what I
have said, that is fine with me. But this closes my part of the
discussion, and I am thankful for the brotherly spirit which exists
between us and intend to keep promoting that with all my
heart.
P.O. Box 91346, Louisville, Kentucky 40291
[Truth Magazine XLIX, 9 (May 5, 2005):270-272]
__________________________________________________________________________________
My Rejoinder on
Divorce and Remarriage
Weldon Warnock
For the sake of illuminating my position a
little more clearly. I ask your forbearance for a few more thoughts
in this rejoinder to brother Adams.
These articles will be read and evaluated for
now, and perhaps in years to come. I don’t want to leave anything,
if at all possible, vague, ambiguous, and unanswered.
Truth Magazine
As to more being written in Truth Maqazine in
favor of Connie’s views set forth in this exchange, I don’t know for
sure. I can’t remember it being that slanted toward what we are
presently discussing. To my memory I have agreed with most of the
articles on divorce and remarriage. I suppose Connie meant all the
articles, generally speaking, written by the staff writers to which
about all of us have concurred and have preached through the
years.
Searchinq the Scriptures
Article
In reference to the article of mine that
appeared in Searching the Scriptures in November 1985, to which
Connie alluded, was entitled, "May the Guilty Party Remarry?" The
point to which Connie and Jim Deason responded was a brief
parenthetical statement. Jim and I had an exchange of one article
each in March 1986. Connie stated his differences in the same
issue.
After that we all moved on to other things. In
the past few years some over-zealous brethren have used this
parenthetical statement as fodder to feed their hobby
horse.
Three Marital
Situations
Concerning the three different cases of the
person receiving divorce papers in the mail, the soldier who comes
homes and finds his wife had remarried and the woman who has no
money to counter-sue, I agree with Connie that we have only what is
written in the Bible as to the right answer. By implication,
Connie’s answer to these situations is that they may not remarry,
but would have to live in celibacy. My answer is that the innocent
parties may remarry based on Matthew 19:9. We are not talking about
spouses whose mates become bank robbers, alcoholics, drug addicts or
invalids, but who commit fornication. Jesus does not permit divorce
and remarriage for any cause but for fornication. Fornication is
involved in each one of these cases, so the innocent party may
dismiss, repudiate, reiect and disavow his/her guilty
mate.
Exceptions
Evidently, we both agree that "whosoever
marrieth her which is put away committeth adultery" (Matt. 19:9) has
exceptions. Connie granted that death breaks the marriage bond and
the put away woman may remarry. However, he wants to know where
there is another exception for one who is put away to remarry? Well,
that one is Matthew 19:9. In fact, the word "except" is found right
in the middle of the verse
"except it be for
fornication." The innocent woman in the latter part of the verse may
do what the innocent man may do in the first part of the verse when
fornication is involved. When one is unscripturally put away by a
fornicating mate, the innocent party may scripturally put away the
guilty party. Else, you have Jesus teaching that an innocent spouse
is forever bound, that is, a life time, by the nefarious and
sexually immoral acts and deeds of a marriage partner. Thus we are
told by some that the faithful, innocent wife or husband cannot,
therefore, act in dissolving a marriage bond because the ungodly
spouse got the civil divorce before the innocent mate did or
could.
Jewish Women
The proof I offered is overwhelming that Jewish
women were always put away by their Jewish husbands, especially in
Palestine. I quoted Lenski, Hendriksen, Barclay, Earle, Hastings,
and Josephus. The Jewish women were the put away. Yet, Jesus said
that women can put away and remarry (Mark 10:12). How did the Jewish
women do what Jesus said women could do? The Romans did not
interfere in Palestine with the Jewish customs. They did not go to a
Roman official and secure a divorce. Their husbands gave them a bill
of divorcement, not the Romans. Hence, these innocent, put away
Jewish women could scripturally remarry according to Mark 10:12, for
the cause of fornication (Matt. 19:9). But if Mark 10:12 was just
applicable to the non-Jewish women, then Jesus permits them to
remarry for the cause of fornication, but not the Jewish women.
Surely, no one believes that! These Jewish women could dismiss,
repudiate, disavow or reject their husbands.
Why? Because Jesus said so in Mark 10:12 and
Matthew 19:9. If they, the put away, could do it then, the put away,
innocent spouse may do it today.
After the Fact
We are told that after the fact of a civil
divorce, an innocent person may not put away his/her mate for
fornication because there has already been a putting away, but the
putting away initially was unscriptural. There was no right to put
away the innocent party. The innocent spouse is given the right to
put away a fornicating partner (Matt. 19:9). When no fornication
exists, neither the one who puts away may remarry without committing
adultery and neither may the one who is put away remarry without
committing adultery (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). To say
that one can’t reject when he has been rejected by a fornicating
spouse is illogical. It is like saying if you forsake somebody, he
cannot forsake you. But we read that, if we forsake God, he will
forsake us (2 Chron. 15:2). It is fallacious to say that one cannot
repudiate and dismiss his husband or wife if he or she has been
beaten to the courthouse in a civil divorce.
Divorce
A few more words need to be said about "mental
divorce." Connie seems to think that the legal divorce at the
courthouse precludes any further action in doing what God allows. He
thinks that any subsequent activity could only be mental, hence, he
concludes that it is "mental divorce." I interpret what Connie wrote
that, if you don’t go to the courthouse in this country, then any
other action would have to be mental, in the mind. But the Greek
word apoluo, translated "put away" in Matthew 19:9 and other places
is a verb of action. Thayer says it means to "dismiss from the
house; repudiate" (66).
This does not sound just like "mental" to me.
Are you saying that an innocent spouse cannot dismiss and repudiate
a fornicating mate after a civil divorce has taken place? The Jewish
woman could because they were always the put away. This is true with
the Moslem women in the Islamic world today. Of course, the heart is
involved in a divorce as it is in a marriage.
The heart must be involved in a sincere way in
all our actions before God.
"Blessed are the pure in heart."
No, a couple is not married at the moment a man
proposes to a woman and she accepts. Neither are they married at the
moment they pick up their marriage license at the courthouse.
Marriage is a covenant (Mal. 2:14). A covenant entails an agreement
between two or more. When a man and a woman marry, they take vows
that reflect the thoughts of their heart. Would not a marriage be of
the heart, expressing by vows a commitment to one another till death
they do part?
It takes two for the marriage, but only one to
destroy it. When a husband or wife commits fornication, he or she
has disrupted the marriage and the innocent party may put away
(dismiss, repudiate) the guilty mate (Matt.
19:9). When there is no fornication and a man
puts away his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. The
same is true with the woman who marries another. We could say:
"Whosoever puts away his wife when there is no fornication and
marries another commits adultery. And whoever marries her when there
is no fornication commits adultery." Fornication, the exception to
the rule, makes the difference for the innocent party.
Marriage is an agreement between two people, a
man and a woman. Divorce can take place when only one spouse acts or
both may decide to divorce. When fornication is involved, the
innocent may put away the guilty partner and marry another. By the
way, I have never heard of a man marrying a woman, or vice versa,
and she did not know it. However, I have heard of a man divorcing
his wife, or vice versa, and she/he didn’t know it. According to
some brethren, this woman is trapped in celibacy, through no fault
of her own, and cannot put away her fornicating husband. Let me also
say: No, I don ’t condone "shackin’ up," or common law marriages. I
have never sanctoned adultery.
Conclusion
I trust that this congenial exchange will be
profitable to all who read it and that it will be received in the
spirit in which both of us tried to present it, There are many
ramifications to this issue in application and, in my opinion,
nobody has the answer to every one of them. What happened to
tolerance with some of us? I appreciate Connie’s patience and good
attitude in this matter and I trust that I have manifested the same.
-
87 Ormond Dr., Scottsville, Kentucky 42164
[Truth Magazine XLIX, 9 (May 5,
2005)272-274]
