Marriage, Divorce, and Passage Twisting

The person mentioned previously who wanted to divorce his wife based on what he suspected (but had no evidence for) did not invent a unique rationale to try to justify himself; he resorted to the 40-year-old arguments of James D. Bales, James Woodroof, and Olan Hicks. He provided “a justification” for his actions based on what an elder somewhere wrote (whose name will be omitted), but that elder is merely echoing what these other men have argued (in vain).

First Conclusion

The elder’s first conclusion is that when Jesus said, “let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6), He did not mean that it was impossible to put asunder. Would that be the equivalent of saying, “When God said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ that He did not mean it was impossible to commit adultery”? Of course it is possible. A spouse may obtain a civil divorce without adequate cause, but it violates God’s command, just as committing adultery does.

But the rationale gets worse. Citing Malachi 2:16, in which God says that He “hates divorce,” the elder comments that this verse does not mean that, just because God hates divorce, “He refuses to recognize divorce when it occurs.” Seriously? Who can reason this way except someone with an agenda—someone who has already determined what he wants the Scriptures to say before even looking at them? This kind of reasoning has God saying, “I really hate that you got a divorce, but, okay, you’re divorced.” That certainly was not His attitude toward Herod and Herodias. John said it was not lawful for Herod to have his brother Philip’s wife. Why did He not recognize her divorce?

The elder further alleges that nowhere did Jesus or the Bible say that a divorce was not a divorce. Matthew 19:9 teaches it. If a man divorces his wife (not for fornication) and marries another, it constitutes adultery. If it is adultery, it means that God did not recognize the divorce. Second, God did not recognize the divorce of Herodias. Third, the woman of Romans 7:3, who marries another man while her husband was living “will be called an adulteress.” Now what does that mean except that God did not recognize her “divorce”? Those who twist the Scriptures to make them mean (and the exact opposite of what they do mean) what they would like them to mean ought to be ashamed, but they are not.

The elder cites 1 Corinthians 7:15 as Paul teaching that desertion is a ground for divorce. Paul taught no such thing, and the elder is guilty of misinterpreting what Paul wrote. Doing so insults an inspired apostle and is no more than a clumsy effort to find a way out of marriage. Paul said that the Christian was not bound to try to stay in a hostile relationship; let the unbeliever depart. Nothing authorizes another marriage.

Second Conclusion

Not only is a divorce a divorce, according to the elder, but a marriage is a marriage. As proof, he cited the conversation Jesus had with the woman at the well. However, his case is built on assumption. Unless all of her husbands died, he points out, she had obtained some divorces. And Jesus considered them all husbands. “They would not have been husbands if she were not married to them,” he writes. Is it valid to argue by assumption? She could just as easily have been widowed five times as divorced five times. This is an awful way to argue. The elder assumes that she was divorced instead of widowed and then says Jesus accepted her multiple marriages! Wow! Anyone who is granted an assumption that large can likely “prove” anything.

Apparently, the elder has never heard of “accommodative” language, but he could have if he had ever studied Mark 6:17-18. In Mark 6:17 we read that Herod had imprisoned John "for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, for he had married her." Perhaps the wise elder could explain how she was Philip's wife even though Herod married her. Verse 18 explains, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." She is Philip's wife, but Herod married her. The fact is that God did not recognize her civil divorce against Philip (whatever form that took), and neither did He recognize the subsequent civil marriage. In the eyes of Rome, what Herod and Herodias did was fine, but it was condemned in the sight of God. Marriage and divorce, then, can be used either in a civil or a Scriptural sense. The elder denies this fact, but it is irrefutable.

Third Conclusion

People do not sin or live in adultery when they are unscripturally divorced and married again, says the elder. This is a direct denial of Matthew 19:9. Jesus says they commit adultery. And, yes, people can live in adultery the same way they live in fornication, as Colossians 3:5-7 teaches. It is a state (marital adultery) one enters unlawfully into. The elder then tries to define adultery as “covenant breaking.” Imagine! The woman caught in the very act of adultery in John 8 must have been caught signing a divorce paper. All false teachers redefine words concerning which everyone knows the definition. If they can succeed in defining adultery as “covenant breaking,” then just obtaining the divorce was wrong. So they repent of that action—after which they are all right—free to marry again. Adultery becomes the one-time action of obtaining the divorce—not living together with another spouse. This is a clear case of Scripture twisting (2 Peter 3:16). It is as though a man says, “Oops! I divorced my wife in a one-time action. I shouldn’t have committed adultery like that, but it was only once, and I repent of it. So now I can move on to the next woman.” Really?

One wonders why John did not use this kind of slick, doubletalk on Herod and Herodias. “Herodias, when you divorced your husband, you broke your covenant, but it was a one-time action; you’re not living in adultery now. May I please keep my head?” John did not say that because it was not the case. What they had done was not lawful, and they were living in adultery, as most everyone knows (who is not trying to justify divorce for every cause).

The approach to scholarship used by this elder is typical of liberals. He claims that A. T. Robertson and Lenski agree with his position (which is untrue), but he neglects citing any of their works. In other words, he provides zero documentation. He just expects us to “trust” him, apparently—that he understood what they said, summarized it accurately, and applied it properly. He also ignores the vast consensus of scholarship contrary to his argument.

Fourth Conclusion

Jesus, according to the elder, was not saying the guilty party could not marry again; He was only “pointing out who the guilty party is”—who it was that caused the divorce. This is as astounding as the claim by Mac Deaver that Peter and John did not impart spiritual gifts to the Samaritans—they were only there to identify who the Christians were so the Holy Spirit would grant them a gift. (Isn’t the Holy Spirit omniscient? Why would he need Peter and John to assist Him?) So Jesus was only pointing out who the guilty party was; under this perverted system of “interpretation,” even the guilty party can marry. This would certainly be “good news” for a lot of folks—if it were true.

Yes, the guilty party must intend to keep his wedding vows the next time he marries. So what happens if he divorces again? We can only imagine that the next time he must really keep those vows, and the time after that, he must really, really keep them, and so on ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Fifth Conclusion

This argument alleges that, when couples are unscripturally married, we ask them to break up their homes before we baptize them, thereby making adultery an unforgiveable sin. Every other sin, it is argued, can be repented of and forgiven—but not unscriptural divorce. However, no one has ever argued that adulterers cannot have forgiveness. Jesus told the woman taken in adultery, “Go, and sin no more.” If she repented, she could be forgiven, although we do not know if her husband took her back.

Adulterers can be forgiven! But they cannot continue to live in adultery. This is obvious to most people, which is the reason for changing the definition of adultery to “covenant breaking.” But everyone agrees (even the elder who wrote this document) that a person must give up the sin he has been committing that is wrong.

The fault in this Bible-opposing view is that it assumes that the marriage is a valid one and that the couple is not living in adultery. But if they are living in adultery (as previously shown), then the only way to have forgiveness would be to quit living in adultery. It is just that simple. How could Herod and Herodias have pleased God? It was not lawful for them to be married; therefore, they needed to quit living together and acting as though they were married.

To refer to repentance as “breaking up a home” is using “loaded” and slanted language so as to enlist sympathy for the Bible-opposing view. That marriage was never authorized, and having children over a period of time did not change an unlawful marriage into an acceptable one. One is not breaking up a home; one is ceasing to live in adultery.

A murderer can have forgiveness, but things will never be the same. The victim remains dead no matter how fervently the murderer repents. Unscriptural divorce changes conditions, also—the difference is that the victims are still alive. Forgiveness is available, but the privilege of marriage is lost.

The elder laments, “We actually become guilty of ordering couples to break their marriage vows.” This is another example of “spinning” the situation—not to mention introducing hysteria into a serious problem. First, we do not order couples to break their vows. We study the Bible with them to enable them to see the truth concerning their “marriage.” Second, we encourage them to repent and do what is right. Oftentimes they refuse, but occasionally some put the will of God ahead of their own desires. If children are involved, special care must be given to protect the innocent victims of an unauthorized union.

Further justification for staying “married” is an appeal to the fact that God said it was not good for man to be alone and that Paul said it was better to marry than to burn with passion. Both of those Scriptures were said of individuals who were eligible to be married and had never been married. Jesus mentioned those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom’s sake (Matt. 19:12). In the context, the comment refers to those who were unscripturally divorced. Jesus and His kingdom—not to mention heaven itself—are far more important than having an earthly partner and being lost.

One final argument is that a fornicator can be as promiscuous as he wants, breaking up other people’s marriages, yet all the while remaining single and free to marry. By way of contrast, a married man may have a difficult wife to live with, but he cannot leave that marriage and have another woman. On the surface, this does seem unfair, but the fornicator never made any vows to be true to anyone until death did them part. The married man gave his word to do precisely that. He took his wife for better or for worse, as she did him. These vows were made before God, and He expects them to be honored. Both fornicators and adulterers must repent; otherwise God will judge them (Heb. 13:4).