6
Dec
2008
QUESTIONS OF A “GUILTY PARTY”
A man wrote to say, “I sinned against my marriage and, in fact, destroyed my marriage, divorced my wife. I know I did wrong. I have repented but I cannot undo what I did. I now have a good marriage to a fine Chrisian wife. But our local preacher told me that the only way I can be right with God is to destroy this marriage and live alone. Is this what the Bible teaches?” In response I wrote the following:
Don’t let anyone sell you the notion that you repent of breaking marriage by breaking another one. No sin is repented of by repeating the sin but by the opposite, resolving not to repeat it. This is only one of many errors in the traditional theory on divorce and remarriage.
I assume going in that you trust the Bible as an accurate revelation of God’s will and also that you will agree that men ought not to change anything it says. The first two things wrong with what the preacher told you are 1. What he said is not in the Bible and 2. It contradicts what is in the Bible. Look it up and see what I mean.
The origin of the theory you have been given is the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. In the 16th century it was decreed by this human assembly that “marriage is a sacrament” and as such, is unbreakable until death. The Bible did not say this. The council of Trent said it. This idea changes the teaching of scripture as Jesus gave it in Matthew 19:6. The Lord said, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They made it into “What God has joined together man CANNOT put asunder.” From that they concluded that a divorced person is “ineligible” to marry because in God’s sight he is still married to the previous mate. Some of our brethren bought into that idea even though it has absolutely no scriptural support, and apparently your preacher is one of them.
In 1995 I debated Mac Deaver on MDR and he affirmed this theory all the way through, “What God has joined together man CANNOT put asunder.” (This debate is printed in book form in case you might want it.) From that faulty foundation they build a pyramid of error. It causes them to contradict virually every passage on the subject the rest of the way through the Bible. For example, Matthew 19:9 is their primary proof text, but they deny every statement in it. There Jesus said, “Whoever divorces his wife except for fornication. . .” and they say that is not possible to do. Next Jesus said, “and shall marry another.” They say that is not possible either. Then the Lord said that in doing those two things he “commits adultery.” They say “No, adultery cannot be committed in doing those two things because adultery is a sex act.” That is what Mac Deaver said in our debate. When they tell you that you are not eligible to be married, this is the verse they give you, and they don’t believe a word it says. Isn’t that strange?
I’m sure you know that Jesus appointed the apostles to be the final interpreters of His will and sent the Holy spirit to guide them and “bring to their remembrance” all that He had taught. So the apostles had it right. When traditional brethren contradict the way the apostles understood Jesus, that says they are wrong.
Paul is the one who wrote most on this subject. In 1 Corinthians 7 he said at verse 2 that to avoid immorality every man should have his own wife and every woman should have her own husband. Now look back in the 6th chapter and you find that he wrote this to a church in which he knew there were some former adulterers. “Such were some of you.” (Verse 9-11) Yet he said that every one of them could and should have a marriage. Three times in 9 verses he referred to the need of a marriage in order to avoid temptaton. (Vs. 2, Vs. 5, and vs. 9) At verse 9 he said concerning unmarried people, “Let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.” These brethren contradict that and say “Don’t let them marry.”
In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Paul mentioned this doctrine as part of a departure from the faith. He said the Spirit predicted a falling away to come in later times when men would give heed to doctrines of demons. The first feature of it, given at verse 3, is “forbidding to marry.” This is what they do. They claim to forbid divorce but actually it is marriage itself they forbid. You can be divorced, totally without a reason, and if you just stay that way and do not marry anyone they will accept your repentance and fellowship you. So the fact is they are forbidders of marriage, not forbidders of divorce. Paul said this comes from demons, not from God.
As I said in an article on this web site, 1 Corinthians 7:28 states that a divorced man does not sin if he marries. Of course, what is true for a man would also be true of a woman. And what is true of a man who was put away by his wife, would also be true of one who put away his wife. In either case the marriage is broken. The only way to deny this is to buy into the unfounded theory that changes “DO NOT” to “CANNOT.” That is a human theory and untrue.
The bottom line is that at the end of the way we will be judged by what is written “in the books,” the Bible. (Revelation 20:12) We will not face theories of men at the judgment. These books will still say the same thing then that they say now. The sensible thing to do is to get straight on what they say now and stick with that.
As a final thought I would like you to open your Bible to Isaiah 55:7 and read what God Himself said by way of explaining grace, what he will do in the case of a wicked man who forsakes his wicked way and turns to God’s way. God’s way in marriage is One man, One woman, committed to each other for life. When someone has been going the other way, practicing marriage breaking, going from mate to mate, and he repents of that and accepts God’s way, One man for One woman for life, he has repented. What did God say He will do in such a case? I believe Jesus would say to traditional brethren of today what He said to the Pharisees of His time. “But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’ for I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13)