Divorced in Ignorance?

\but judjudge righteous judgment\, judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment\" (John 7:24).

\"Once upon a time….\" Fairy tales are so termed because they do not usually resemble real life. \"And they lived happily ever after…\" can occur, but for many couples these words will never prove to be an accurate description. Many opt for divorce. Many preachers have experienced a scenario like the one that follows. The details may vary, but the sad situation is the same.

Maria and Antonio (not their real names) and their children begin attending worship. Shortly thereafter, a Bible study is scheduled with them, which they seem to really enjoy. After a few weeks, it becomes apparent that there have been previous marriages. The studies continue, but eventually they want to discuss the subject of marriage. A date is set, and after fervent prayer for the reception of truth, they meet.

Antonio has been married once before. His first marriage lasted more than ten years, but his wife never contributed much to the partnership. He worked two jobs; she had children but expected him to clean the house and cook the meals. Eventually he grew tired of making all the sacrifices, and they divorced. Neither was a Christian at the time, and he had no reason to think she was guilty of adultery.

Maria’s first marriage ended in divorce, but the reason was Scriptural: her husband cheated on her multiple times. She was not a Christian, but her divorce was valid. However, another matter complicated her situation. She was an \"illegal,\" whose mother brought her to the United States on a temporary visa, but they never returned. Maria did not want to leave this country; so she paid a man several thousand dollars to marry her. Once she was legal, they divorced. She said that it was never a real marriage; it was just a business deal. Yes, it sounds like she attended the Dave Miller School of Immigration, but it is unlikely that she had ever heard of him. The fact that she did not count it as a marriage does not mean God shares her view.

Having covered the particulars of their marital history, it was time to look at what the Bible said. We covered slowly Matthew 19:3-9 and asked questions as to the meaning. They understood the text just as most people do. The only objection was, \"But doesn’t it make a difference that we weren’t Christians and didn’t know what the Bible teaches?\" All Christians understand why people ask that question; none of us wants to be held accountable for what we were never taught.

But we asked a few questions, such as: \"Is stealing all right if we have never been taught that it is wrong?\" \"Since almost half of the country has no objection to abortion, is it then all right to have one and it not be killing an innocent human being—because we were not taught properly?\" \"Since the entertainment and the news media, along with many educators, believe that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, is it therefore all right to practice this sin and plead innocent?\" It was obvious to this couple that all other sins would still be condemned even if people practice them in ignorance. Of course, they had answered their own question in commenting on these other matters.

We also showed how that baptism does not change relationships. A mother remains a mother; siblings remain siblings; and a person without a Scriptural divorce is not suddenly freed from a previous marriage and also now married to someone else. Baptism does not change one’s marital status. Those unscripturally married before being baptized still are afterward.

The couple understood that they were not married and wondered what they should do. We prayed first of all that they might accept the truths of the Scriptures; then we began to explore options but postponed any decisions until a later time because they were already emotionally distraught. We gave them the Scriptures we had discussed, advising them to review what had been presented. Antonio said, \"Will they change?\"

Imagine that! He possessed a sense of humor despite being heartbroken. No communication occurred for a week. Then the e-mail came that said they had investigated the subject on-line and decided they could remain married—and be Christians at the same time. The following attachment from a brother Shappley appeared (corrections made):

Marriage

On Pentecost Day none of the Jewish legitimate marriages by Moses’ law had to be dissolved or undone as a condition in order to be baptized; even if they were married or divorced previously. Right? Wrong? Whoever thinks this is wrong or incorrect should explain why.

If this was like it on Pentecost Day in Jerusalem, then it must be like that for all Jewish marriages as well around the world, not only on Pentecost Day but on the following years after that. This also would apply to Jewish marriages today, sustaining the premise that God make no exceptions! Right?

Now, if this was the case for Jewish marriages it will also be the same for Gentile marriages again under the same premise God makes no exceptions. There is not a particular law for Jews different than for Gentiles. By all means any Gentile marriage, legally done by the laws of the country where performed, as soon they hear God’s word and ask to be baptized, didn’t have to break apart or dissolve the marriage as a condition to be baptized, even if there were previous marriages or divorces done by the laws of the country where it was performed.

This means that today any married couple who gets baptized doesn’t have to break or dissolve their marriage as a condition to get baptized no matter if they were married or divorced before. Any well redacted analysis or concise opinion about this article will be welcome and can be emailed at hshappley@yahoo.com.

These few paragraphs deserved a reply; below is a portion of the response I sent to their author:

H. Shappley,

Your comments about marriage were forwarded to me. You seem to be making an appeal to logic, but the very thing you must prove you have assumed. It is not logical to assume your case is true and then proceed with your conclusions. Enclosed is a brief analysis.

\"On Pentecost Day none of the Jewish legitimate marriages by Moses’ law had to be dissolved or undone as a condition in order to be baptized—even if they were married or divorced previously.\"

How do you know this to be the case?

1. Are you old enough to have been present that day?

2. If not, then did you read in the Scriptures what you stated? If so, where? ….

3. The point is that the Holy Spirit did not reveal to us everything that occurred on the Day of Pentecost. Peter told the Jews to repent; so we must assume that those who were baptized did repent, which meant…giving up a person to whom one was not entitled.

The idea that other Jewish marriages were allowed to remain intact and therefore Gentile ones, also, is built upon the same faulty premise that was not proved in the first place. But while we are on the subject, we know that under the Law of Moses a Jewish man could have more than one wife. Apparently, when Jewish men and their wives were baptized, they all got to continue in their polygamous relationships, since no one on the Day of Pentecost put away extra wives (by your logic).

Your concluding sentence is: \"This means that today any married couple who gets baptized doesn’t have to break or dissolve their marriage as a condition to get baptized no matter if they were married or divorced before.\" The problem with this statement is the wording. If a man or a woman is not authorized to be married, then they are not in a marriage. They cannot break or dissolve what does not exist. They \"married\" according to the laws of the land, but God did not authorize them to be married, nor does He consider them married. Baptism is not a marriage ceremony. It cleanses one of sins (when a person repents), but it does not make an illegitimate relationship into a valid one.

I look forward to your response, and I assume you have one since you are advising those who are not authorized to be married to each other to remain in an adulterous relationship (Matt. 19:9), which jeopardizes your soul as well as their souls.

Gary (Feb. 29, 2012)

Homero Shappley de Álamo replied by asking:

Are you, then, willing to say that all Israelites divorced for reasons other than adultery and remarried exactly as the Old Testament law allowed were suddenly, on Pentecost morning, held by God to be in illegitimate marriages, and under pain of damnation if they did not proceed immediately to dissolve them? If your answer is \"Yes,\" then I would ask, respectfully: What is the proof they were (March 3, 2012)?

In response, I pointed out that \"affirmations do not constitute proof.\" In other words, he can claim anything he wants about Pentecost—that something did or did not happen, but he cannot prove his assertions. In addition to that, I tried to get him to see the fundamental flaw with his entire position.

Regardless of what happened at Pentecost, no one today was born under the Law of Moses; no one is in a parallel situation to those folks on that day. The Law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). It is no longer in effect; so anyone that we study with today was never authorized to be divorced and remarried (apart from adultery). Your position, even if correct (which it is not), would have no relationship to anyone's situation in the 21st century (March 5, 2012).

This is the main point. Were there people who divorced their wives under the Law of Moses for reasons other than adultery and then remarried? Absolutely! The fact that such \"easy\" divorce and remarriage was occurring is evidenced by the fact that Jesus was asked the very question that prompts the discussion in Matthew 19:3-9. Now what happened on the Day of Pentecost with respect to those divorced contrary to God’s original pattern (and married again)? The text does not tell us; therefore it is presumptuous to say that they were allowed to continue in those marriages. But even if they were, not one individual living today was born under the Law of Moses! All people currently alive were born under the new covenant of Jesus Christ. The laws that any nation has are irrelevant (such as no-fault divorce); the only authority that governs all mankind today is the Law of Christ!

Polygamy

In the February 29th e-mail, I made the following argument.

Polygamy was allowed under the Law of Moses. Have you not read that David, a man after God's own heart, had several wives? He began with Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:42-43) but later added more (2 Sam. 5:13). Prior to David, Elkanah had two wives (1 Samuel 1). The book of Deuteronomy has a provision for the children of a man married to more than one woman: \"If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved...\" (21:15-17). The passage goes on to say that the first son born must be regarded as the firstborn. The point, however, is that polygamy was allowed and authorized under the Law of Moses. Are you denying this fact? Since it was authorized but God never designed marriage to be polygamous, what happened to any Jews in a polygamous marriage on Pentecost? This is exactly parallel to your argument that some Jews were in marriages (after having divorced for reasons other than adultery) before Pentecost. We have no example of either one being told to leave those marriages. Thus, by your logic, those who became Christians could continue in polygamous marriages. If not, why not?

Shappley made a curious argument concerning polygamy, saying that allowed is one thing but that authorized or commanded is another. He suggested that God allowing Israel to practice polygamy did not mean He \"directly authorized or commanded\" it. Homero also affirmed that the \"case of a polygamous Israelite man would absolutely not be ‘exactly parallel’ with\" those who were divorced for any reason and married to another under the Law. He indicated that the two situations (divorce for any cause and polygamy) were not parallel because the polygamist at least ended up with one wife. My response was:

You tried to dodge the point on polygamy by distinguishing between allowed and authorized, however, you did not comment on any of the passages that I cited. You say God did not command a man to have more than one wife, which is silly. If He had, then every man would have had to marry two women. Should He have commanded two, three, four, or 1,000? The fact that He allowed more than one is all that we need to know. Was it lawful for David to have two wives (and then more later)? Was he in violation of the Law of Moses? Was any Jew who had more than one wife on the Day of Pentecost in a lawful arrangement at that time? It is exactly parallel. You argued that the solution was not parallel since he could still retain one wife, but that is not the point. The point is, \"Did he under the new covenant need to terminate those other relationships?\" You seemed to think he should. Inadvertently, you have therefore given up your own argument.

For some reason, Shappley chose not to reply to any of the March 5th e-mail. In his last e-mail (March 3rd), he said:

I plan to translate our dialogue into Spanish and make it available to those interested so that they may come to their own conclusions. I will not identify you by name, or the place you work, but only as an \"English-speaking preacher.\"

I wrote back (March 5th):

Regarding your translation, I do not care if you use my name, so long as you translated fairly and do not edit out the heart of my arguments. But why waste your time on me? Why don't you translate brother Thomas B. Warren's book, Keeping the Lock in Wedlock? He was the greatest logician of the past century, and you could have a lot more fun trying to refute him.

How sad that unscripturally divorced and remarried couples today (who were born during the last and final covenant of God with man) end up being persuaded to live in adultery by the faulty arguments of men!