Progressive Marriage Interpretation (Part 2)

Mike Hisaw released some videos on the subject of marriage, divorce, and marrying again. Some preachers answered him on GBN, and Hisaw saw fit to respond to what they said, frequently playing clips of them at faster than normal speed. These two articles refute the defense Hisaw made in his rebuttal to GBN.

Most scholars acknowledge that the Greek tense in Matthew 19:9 is such that the action of the verb is continuous. The couple in an unauthorized marriage keeps on committing adultery as long as they live together and engage in sexual relations. Hisaw says that it is punctiliar action—meaning that the sin is only committed one time—say, at a civil marriage ceremony. Once it is completed, the adultery is over. They entered into the marriage wrongly, but, having done so, they can stay in that relationship (without committing adultery).

That position is, of course, false (since it redefines adultery, as shown last week), but Hisaw compounds his error by saying no one can prove that the verb involves continuous action. If it cannot be proven from the Greek or the context one way or the other, then we cannot know whether the action is one-time or continuous. And if we cannot know, then those who listened to Jesus teach on this subject could not have known, either, in which case they should have asked for further clarification—since the question had not been answered. The text shows, however, that the disciples knew precisely what Jesus meant (Matt. 19:10-12).

Another example cited to parallel entering the unscriptural marriage and keeping the new wife is that of the men who tricked Israel into signing an agreement. Israel had been commanded to destroy the Canaanites and make no agreement with them (Deut. 7:1-5). The men of Gibeon saw the success Israel had with Jericho and Ai; so ,they pretended to be from a far country which wanted to make a covenant with God's people (Joshua 9:3-15). Believing the lie, Israel made an agreement with them—not to destroy them.

Later, they discovered they had been duped. But they had given their word, and they had to honor it. The application is that even though it was wrong to enter into another marriage, the couple made a vow to each other, and they needed to honor it. Thus, they could continue in the marriage. Where does this analogy fail?

Art had already made a vow to Anna, but he broke it. He is not entitled to make another vow with Zelda because in so doing he is violating his original vow. Following is a situation that would be parallel. Israel made a vow with the Gibeonites. But later they decided they no longer desired to keep that agreement; so, they wrote a letter absolving themselves of that responsibility. Now they found another city they liked, and they made a covenant with them. This would be parallel to the situation with Art, Anna, and Zelda.

Israel made a covenant with the Gibeonites; they did not need to violate a covenant with any other nation to do so. Therefore, they must keep the word they gave to the Gibeonites. Art could not technically make a covenant with Zelda because he had already made an agreement with Anna, which he arbitrarily ended—thus making him a covenant-breaker. He may do the same thing with Zelda someday. What is to prevent him from divorcing Zelda and marrying Yolanda? "It's only the divorce action and the subsequent marriage action that are wrong," Hisaw claims. He might eventually be "married" to Xenia, Wilma, Veronica, and Teresa, also—all with God's approval. Who can believe it?

Does God Hate Divorce?

For centuries, brethren have quoted Malachi 2:16 to show that God hates divorce, but Hisaw tries to co-opt this passage by making a rather vague point as to translating the passage as, God saying, "I hate divorce," or "He hates divorce." Although a few translations may say, I, they acknowledge that the Hebrew is literally, He. What's the point? This is a translation issue—not a theological one. The New King James renders the passage: "For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garments with violence…." He is a better choice than I. So what? The point remains that God hates divorce.

Hisaw points out that there are variations of views even among conservative brethren, which is true but irrelevant. Suppose that 95% of brethren agree that there are three personalities in the Godhead and 5% think only one person is in the Godhead. If the 95% disagree on some other Christian doctrines, would that somehow negate the Trinity? Suppose that 20% of the 95% believe that women can be preachers and elders. Because of that disagreement, shall we discard the truth concerning the Godhead? Obviously not; so, what is the point of making this argument? In all instances, we should be interested in the truth—and discuss conflicting doctrines in hopes of attaining unity.

Historical Research

Hisaw quotes from Pat Harrell's book, in which he allegedly documents that in the historical church, no one was ever required to put away his wife in order to become a Christian. Your editor read Pat Harrell's book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church, about five decades ago. Seldom has he ever seen the work cited by faithful brethren. Harrell was a co-founder and board member of Restoration Quarterly, a liberal publication.

Concerning this topic, however, other questions might be asked. Do we know if any polygamist was ever told to give up his superfluous wives? Was a homosexual couple ever asked to give up a "partner"? Just because no examples can be cited does not mean that they never occurred. Two members of this congregation spent an entire afternoon studying divorce with two people who were not authorized to be married to each other. Few people have ever known about the situation, and it was never written about—until now. Even if Harrell's research is entirely correct, it would not prove that authorized marriage was never discussed or that some were refused baptism until they repented of their sins.

Greek

Hisaw makes several observations about the Greek, which few of us could corroborate or deny—even if we managed to survive the boredom. Hisaw, for example, quotes page 864 from A. T. Robertson to try to bolster his argument on Matthew 19:9. Daniel Denham possesses more than a hundred Greek grammars (and has read them all). He cites Robertson, too, to disagree with Hisaw: "The difference between the gnomic aorist and the present is that the present may be jurative" (836). For those who know Greek thoroughly, you may delight in checking out these references. The remainder of us will probably make do with reliable translations.

Conclusion

All things considered, Hisaw's is just one more attempt to justify unscriptural divorce and subsequent marriages. The question is not, "Does Hisaw really believe what he is teaching?" but "Is what Hisaw teaching the truth?" Judaizing teachers in the first century undoubtedly were passionate in their error, also (see page 4).