JESUS DOES NOT ALLOW DIVORCE
When asked about divorce, Jesus based his prohibition of divorce on what is written in Genesis chapter two. Jesus used what was said with regard to Adam and Eve's marriage as the grounds to why divorce is not allowed. Their being "one flesh" in marriage had special meaning since Eve was literally one flesh with Adam, having been made from his own rib. But Jesus made the same pronouncement of "one flesh" on all subsequent marriages! This places all lawful marriages on equal footing with that first one. Though wives today are not made from their husbands' ribs, married couples possess the same status as if they were. As it was impossible for Adam to change the fact that he and Eve were one flesh, so it is equally impossible for any lawfully married husband or wife to change the fact that they also are "one flesh". The Apostle Paul understood this very well as we can see in Ephesians 5:28,29. He refers to the husband and wife being one flesh as a great mystery" whereby the wife is part of the man's own body. Also in1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2,3, he very clearly states that only after the death of the husband may the wife marry again. The truth of this subject is accurately reflected in the old solemn phrase, "Till death do us part".
But did not Jesus allow divorce for the single reason of adultery? The following is an exploration of that assumption. Matthew chapter 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Most people would agree that verse 32 is not very clear. It seems to be somewhat of a run-on sentence. And after looking at it for a while, one might say that its exception clause ("saving for the cause of fornication") causes it to appear somewhat self-contradictory. However, its context offers substantial help: In six places in Matthew chapter 5, verses 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, and 43, Jesus says "It hath been said" or "it was said", as we see in verse 31 above. And to each of these he makes an answer like: "But I say unto you... ". Many have not discerned the spirit in which Jesus is speaking in this chapter and have stumbled on his words in verse 32. They have interpreted them legalistically by supposing that Jesus meant 'adultery' when he said 'fornication'.
One of the explanations of being legalistic is when someone takes the particular words that are used and reckons them to mean something other than what the spirit and context is truly saying. As the Jews did not correctly understand God because they stumbled on "the letter" of the Old Testament, so likewise, many Christians today have accepted a major heresy on the subject of divorce and remarriage because they have stumbled on the wording of Jesus' exception clause.
Unregenerated human nature is also a factor to consider in understanding how the scriptures are incorrectly interpreted. In Luke 16:14-19 (17,18) Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees for their covetousness is tied in with a denouncement of their allowing divorce. Pride and discontent are often at the root of both of these sins.
If the assumption that Jesus meant adultery when he said fornication is indeed true, then Matthew 5 verses 31 and 32 would be the only one of the six topics in that chapter where Jesus lets a partial allowance remain. In reality however, the context indicates that his wording in verse 34; "But I say unto you ... not at all" nicely sums up the answer to the question of whether or not any of those six deeds are allowed. In verses 21 and 22 where Jesus addresses killing, we find that we are not even to be angry with our brother without a cause. In verses 27 and 28, on adultery, we find that we are not even to let it be in our heart. In verses 33 and 34, on forswearing and oaths, we are to "swear not at all". In verses 38 and 39, on "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", we are not to do that at all. In verses 43 and 44, on hating our enemies, we are to rather love them.
Now in going back to verses 31and 32, on divorce; are we being told that if our wife commits adultery we may divorce her if we so choose? If that were indeed true, then verses 31 and 32 would also be the only one of the six where we are being given a choice! All the others are spoken straightforwardly in a graceful form of commandment, as Jesus the great reformer, ministers the New Testament. See Matt. 5:19 and Heb. 9:10 (Rom.14:17 Col. 2:8 John 16:8)
This assumed choice given to the man to divorce his wife for adultery, not only violates Jesus' mode of speech and consistent train of thought, but also amounts to nothing less than allowing the man to harden his heart and not forgive. Consider these scriptures: "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Eph. 4:31,32. "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matt. 6:14,15. See also Matt. 18:21-35, (32,33). If Jesus' exception of fornication is indeed a liberty to divorce a married wife for adultery, then an exception must be made for these and all other similar references concerning forgiveness when applied to the sin of adultery. (A little leaven leavens the whole lump).
The divorce-for-adultery pro-choice advocates are in effect making the statement that such references about forgiveness are deceptive to the common reader. They apparently believe that those scriptures are not necessarily applicable to the sin of adultery. It would seem they would have us believe we are in need of their assumed superior knowledge. To us, Jesus' teaching on forgiveness appears by every indication to pertain to all trespassers, including wives who have committed adultery. Is this not strangely reminiscent of the misguided professing Christians of the 14-1500's who felt that without their learned guidance, the common man or woman would be misled by reading the scriptures?
By the above references, and especially in Eph.4:31,32, it is sound to conclude that tenderness of heart goes along with the act of forgiving, in the same way that hardness of heart goes along with unforgiveness. In Matt. 19:8 and Mark 10:4,5, Jesus states that the precept written by Moses allowing a man to divorce his married wife (Deut. 24:1-4) was written for the hardness of their hearts. Is divorce a product of hardness of heart as Jesus said, or is it not? In Matt. 5:31,32, Jesus is referring to that same precept given by Moses: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you... ".
How could the New Testament teach such things that we have read on forgiveness and also that Moses' allowance for divorce was written solely because of the hardness of their hearts; and at the same time allow divorce? Would God emphatically state that he hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and then command his Son to make divorce a personal preferential thing of choice? The New Testament never allows what God hates. If the exception of fornication means allowing divorce on the grounds of adultery, then Jesus by his own admission is allowing hardness of heart and unforgiveness towards the wife if she commits adultery.
Furthermore, since by the New Testament, his laws of truth are written in the hearts of the believers (Heb. 8:10 Rom. 8:4 John 1:17), if divorce for adultery is legal, then hardness of heart and unforgiveness has also been written in our hearts in regard to adulterous wives.
There are worse trespasses than adultery that a wife may commit. If Jesus' exception of fornication is assumed to pertain to the married wife, then fornication is defined to mean adultery. It would then seem reasonable to conclude that if she were to commit an offence other than adultery, her husband couldn't put her away for that because it is not the specified offence. But what if that other offence is worse than adultery? Wouldn't that cause Jesus to appear unfair and unreasonable? This kind of argument could be levelled at Jesus if he had allowed divorce in the married state for adultery or for any other specific sin because there will always be a sin which is at least as severe as the one which has been specified. Divorce would thereby be allowed for one sin but not for another, which may be even worse.
Someone will now say that if she were to commit something worse than adultery, it should be understood that the husband has the right to divorce her for that also. But if this were true, Jesus then appears not to have said what he meant and not to have meant what he said. However, these valid arguments, which reveal that Jesus would have been unreasonable and inconsistent if he had allowed divorce for any specific sin, cannot be used against him because his exception clause does not at all pertain to the married state as will presently be shown.
Though many have stumbled on Matt. 5:32 by assuming that the phrase, "saving for the cause of fornication" means that adultery is a legal grounds for divorce, there have also been many who have discerned the spirit in which Jesus spoke in Matthew 5 and have concluded that it does not seem that Jesus could have been allowing divorce. After all, he gave no partial allowance to any of the other five subjects that he addressed in that chapter. As for the exception, they honestly say they don't understand it. They find consolation in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, where Jesus gives no indication whatsoever that an exception to the married state exists. In fact, those verses seem to be unquestionably against the slightest notion of divorce.
With the apparent prohibition on divorce (Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18) set alongside the exception of fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) it is understandable how the exception of fornication could appear at first, and perhaps for a long time afterward to be a thoroughly confounding problem. The question may be asked: "Is there an exception or is there not?" However, a more appropriate question, which at first seems unworthy even to consider, holds the key to the understanding of this issue. It is as follows:
Is it possible that the apparently more easily understood teachings in Mark and Luke are to be accepted at face value without adding anything, and at the same time, some form of exception happens to exist which does not conflict with those straightforward prohibitive statements in Mark and Luke? In other words, could Jesus' apparent outright prohibition on divorcing the married wife stand unmovable while at the same time some form of exception happens to exist, which does not oppose that outright prohibition? Could there be found some largely unnoticed Biblical evidence that would shed some light on the subject so that we could see that an exception does exist but at the same time there is "no exception"? You can see now what I mean when I say it is a question that seems unworthy even to consider. Unfortunately for those who have not asked themselves that question and thereby have not discovered its potential, but have assumed and taught that Jesus meant adultery when he said fornication, the answer to that question happens to be a very loud and provable 'yes'.
Let me illustrate with a hypothetical situation. You are working, unloading large bags of grain by hand. A notice on the wall states, Whosoever Tears a Bag Must Pay the Cost of Contents. Suppose that as you bring a bag to your shoulder, it slips, and in an attempt to grab it, a large section of the bag rips off before it hits the floor. It would not seem possible that this could happen without your being found guilty. But there is a way, by virtue of a previously unknown factor whereby you would be judged as not violating the true intent of the notice. How could this be? The answer is very simple. You would not be found guilty if the bags were all double-walled and after tearing and hitting the floor, the grain was still very well contained within the remaining layer. The phrase "tears a bag" was expected to be understood to mean that if a bag tore, the contents would spill on the floor.
Let us say also that after tearing only the outer layer and hitting the floor, (the grain being yet very well contained), some of your fellow labourers are uncertain on whether or not you should still pay, since technically you did tear a bag. Therefore, the man in charge, in order to avoid such a misunderstanding, changes the notice so that it reads; Whosoever tears a bag, unless it is only the outer layer, must pay the cost of contents.
This hypothetical scenario does not pretend to cover all the aspects to be discussed about Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. There are hypothetical statements that could be brought out which are grammatically similar in construction to Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. These show in a straightforward manner the effect of an exception clause inserted within such statements. They also show how certain kinds of exception clauses (such as those we find inserted in Matt. 5:32: 19:9) may apply to a closely associated aspect of the subject and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed. However, in this present scenario, the main purpose is to show how separate true statements made about a particular situation may seem to be totally contradictory and unquestionably irreconcilable, simply because an unknown duality exists pertaining to the situation.
The bags being double-layered was the unknown duality which in effect made it possible to tear a bag without tearing a bag. It was torn, but not after the intended meaning of the notice. The unknown duality concerning Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 lies in the fact that there were two kinds of wives; 1) the betrothed or espoused wife, and 2) the completely married wife. Therefore also, there were two kinds of divorce. While Jesus upheld the liberty practised by the Jews to divorce their unmarried betrothed wives for their fornication (in which case the husband would divorce "his wife" before he married her), he prohibited the divorce of the completely married wife for whatever reason. We can see by this how it is possible to divorce without divorcing.
About the closest comparison with this to modern culture would be the scenario of a man breaking off the marriage plans after discovering that his engaged wife-to-be has fornicated. In old time, this would have been regarded as a divorce on the grounds of fornication. (For Biblical proof that the words "husband" and "wife" and "put away" applied to both the married and unmarried couple, see Deut. 22:23,24 "virgin" "betrothed" "husband" "wife". Deut. 20:7 "taken". Matthew 1:18-24; verses 19 "put her away" and 20 "take... Mary thy wife" and 23 "virgin").
Another point this scenario serves to highlight is in regard to the question of why Jesus mentioned the exception at all since it doesn't pertain to the married state anyway. In answering this we should again consider how an exception clause may apply to a closely associated aspect of a subject and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed. Though Jesus was directly addressing the married state (which is proven by Matthew 5:31) the closely related state of betrothal warranted the insertion of the exception clause. Since there were two kinds of wives that could be divorced, Jesus clarified himself by including the exception clause. In the above scenario, not just any tear required payment. It had to be a complete tear. So likewise, not just any divorce constitutes a transgression of God's law. What God hates, is the divorcing of the completely married wife.
By the context of Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10 6-9, it is easy to understand that the husband and wife to whom God says "Let not man put asunder" are those couples who have been pronounced by God to be one flesh by virtue of lawful marriage. That pronouncement was not intended for the betrothed unmarried husband and wife. Though the exception clause, which allows "divorce" is found in the context of the married state, it does not pertain to the married state. Since betrothal was so closely associated with marriage itself, inasmuch that in betrothal the man and woman were regarded as husband and wife, it seems that Jesus' strong words concerning divorce could have been wrongly perceived to also prohibit the customary divorce of the betrothed wife for fornication. The exception clause would have prevented that misunderstanding.
Jesus' exception clause has created a disaster of misunderstanding because of the change of culture that has taken place within relatively recent times. According to modern culture, the words 'husband', 'wife' and 'put away' or 'divorce' pertain exclusively to the married state. If in the days of Jesus, those words had the same exclusive meaning as they have today, then the exception clause would not have been necessary.
Betrothal can be traced in the Scriptures back to the book of Genesis and was still common in even many European countries not so long ago. Surprisingly, the word "married", as the words "husband" and "wife", was also used in regard to the betrothed couple. In the English language around the time when the King James Version was translated, the word "married" was still understood to be applicable to the betrothed state in agreement with the Hebrew. That is why in Gen. 19:4-16 in the K.J.V. we see Lot's virgin daughters still living at home while at the same time reference is made to the men who had "married" them. The explanation is simple: they were betrothed.
Betrothal was in practice by both the Greek and Hebrew cultures at the time of Christ. It therefore should have been easy for those present to understand what Jesus meant by his exception clause. It was common knowledge that a man could divorce his unmarried "wife" for her fornication before they joined together in marriage.
The assumption that Jesus allows divorce for adultery is not the only misinformed interpretation of the exception clause. One particular explanation is based on a well intended but uninformed usage of Deut. 22:13-21. It is sometimes called the "found her not a maid" explanation. See Deut. 22:14 (maid means virgin). The choice given to the man in this scenario to decide on whether or not he will accept his wife after the first night, in effect, gives him the power to usurp authority over what Jesus revealed about marriage. While this explanation uses the correct definition of fornication (the premarital sin), it falls into the same old trap of justifying a post marital divorce because of its lack of understanding on the cultural issue of betrothal. Any attempt at using any form of post-marital divorce to explain the exception clause has never been worthy of any consideration since it violates Jesus' pronouncement of; "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder". All such attempts fall into the category of that which was allowed in the Old Testament because of the hardness of their hearts.
One of the most compelling of any biblical evidence which supports this understanding that the exception clauses apply only to single couples, happens to be the internal evidence that can be found in the very scriptures that make this provision for putting away. According to the most literal rendering of those verses, the woman who is put away for fornication is not being caused to commit adultery (Matt. 5:32), and the man who has put away his wife for fornication does not commit adultery by marrying another (Matt.19:9). That is exactly what we would expect from a premarital divorce because the husband and wife involved in this type of divorce would both still be single!
The man and woman taking on the solemn titles of husband and wife by betrothal was a very deeply rooted and binding cultural reality. It was much more serious than engagement is today. Hence, their titles were husband and wife, not merely husband-to-be and wife-to-be. Under normal circumstances, about the only thing that could legally or acceptably get a betrothed husband out of getting married was if his wife was found to have fornicated. In order to become betrothed, a ceremony was often involved along with witnessed documentation. Therefore documentation may also have been required for the cases when the betrothed husband and wife would "divorce".
In the aforementioned references, we see how Joseph was about to put Mary away while they were only "espoused, before they came together". But the angel said to Joseph, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife... ". She was already his "wife" but he had not taken her. She was probably still living in her father's house.
This understanding that the exception of fornication does not pertain to the married state, but to the betrothed or espoused, defends Jesus against the potential allegation mentioned earlier. The apparent legitimate accusation that Jesus would appear inconsistent and unfair if he had pinpointed a specific reason allowing the divorce of the married wife has been completely dismissed by this simple revelation. Jesus did not allow divorcing the married wife for anything at all; not for fornication committed by her before marriage, nor for the most heinous crime after marriage. How much less then for adultery?
This, however, is not to totally disallow a necessary separation between a husband and wife (See 1 Cor. 7:10,11. Matt. 19:29. Luke 18:28). It is to disallow divorce. While separation means they are still husband and wife but are not together, divorce is a declaration that they are no longer husband and wife, which opens the door for remarriage. That turns the truth of God into a lie. See Rom. 1:25. Lawful marriage before God is sacred. Only by the death of one, is it terminated for the other. See 1 Cor. 7:39,11.
The word of God has only one witness to the exception; the Apostle Matthew, and in two places; 5:32 and 19:9. Neither Mark, Luke, Paul nor any other New Testament writer plainly refers to it. This helps to confirm that the exception of fornication is a minor detail as opposed to a major allowance.
If Jesus did in fact make the major allowance of divorce on the grounds of adultery (a post marital offence and not merely a premarital divorce for fornication), how could Mark and Luke who had understanding have left out such a major allowance? Mark and Luke give every indication that Jesus completely prohibited divorce. Any other teacher would be quickly regarded as incompetent if he at one time announces an apparent blatant and total prohibition on a subject, giving conclusive reasons why, and shortly thereafter makes a major concession. Jesus would have openly contradicted himself if he had made adultery a legal grounds for divorce.
However, far from being a major allowance, it can be said that the exception clause is one of the three points Jesus brings out on this subject of divorce, all of which serve to emphasise disallowance. Jesus revealed in Matt. 5:32 that divorce is wrong because the man by so doing, is causing his wife to commit adultery (for which he is held accountable). He also brings out that the man who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (which is evidence enough to prove that divorce does not dissolve the marriage). In complete agreement with these two points and as an added verification that divorce is prohibited, the exception clause holds the message that the only way a man may divorce his wife is if he does it before he marries her. In Matt. chapter 5, at the six places where Jesus says "But I say unto you", the instruction that follows, always serves to emphasise prohibition. We can safely conclude that the following deeds are not at all allowed by the New Testament: Killing (Matt. 5:21-26) Adultery (Matt. 5:27-30) Divorce (31,32) Swearing (33-37) Revenge (38-42) and Hatred (43-47).
With the modern "Bibles" changing the exception of fornication into adultery, the readers have been deprived of the means of discovering that an explanation exists which reconciles Matthew's exception clauses with Mark and Luke's statements which unquestionably prohibit divorcing the lawful spouse. By this, it in effect becomes necessary for the pro-divorce people to put words in Jesus' mouth in regard to what he said in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18. They say, "what Jesus meant was; divorce is not allowed unless one of them commits adultery; only then may the marriage be dissolved". Rather, let us put words in their mouths. What they are really saying is: "unfortunately for Jesus' hearers, the modern textual critics were not there to inform them of this licence to divorce. They took Jesus' words at face value and were left to mistakenly believe that divorce is prohibited outright". That is of course ridiculous. On Jesus' behalf, I say by the grace of God and to his glory: The reason why it appears that he opposes divorce altogether in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 is because he does oppose divorce altogether. Jesus' teaching surrounding marriage is a very dear truth to him about which he is "Jealous". See Ex. 34:14. He hates divorce. The reason why the exception of fornication is not necessary in Mark and Luke is because it does not pertain to the married state anyway.
It is true that the word fornication can cover a range of sexual immorality. Two of the many examples of this can be seen in Col. 3:5 and Eph. 5:3. But there are other words that describe specific kinds of sexual sins. The word adultery indicates that someone has broken wedlock; a married person has committed 'fornication'. However, since 'adultery' is specifically a post-marital sin, it cannot be used to describe the sexual immorality between a couple, both of whom are single. Other than the word fornication, there is no other specific single word for that sin. So the word fornication, depending on its context, can also mean specifically the premarital sexual sin.
We have seen in Col. 3:5 and Eph. 5:3 that the word fornication alone may be used in a manner in which it is understood that adultery is included. But what happens when adultery is listed alongside fornication as we find in Matt. 15:19, Mark 7:21, 1 Cor. 6:9, and Gal. 5:19? It would seem reasonable that the word fornication could then be allowed to cover sexual sins other than adultery. But the word fornication, as we have seen, has a very common usage: the specific premarital definition. In the context of being listed with adultery, along with its common premarital usage (it is also a common sin) that specific definition should naturally be given consideration if the context allows it. If Jesus' exception of fornication was indeed in regard to the sexual immorality of the unmarried betrothed wife, then the most suitable word to specify that particular sin would have been 'fornication'. 'Adultery' would be the most descriptive word to describe her sin if the exception applied to after marriage.
As in the above list of scriptures where the words fornication and adultery are listed side by side, so it is with the two scriptures containing the exception clause: Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. They each have both words, 'fornication' and 'adultery' in the same context. In fact, each of these verses use 'adultery' twice and 'fornication' once. And when the words fornication and adultery are listed together, 'fornication' naturally tends to take on its common specific premarital definition since 'adultery' specifically pertains to the post-marital.
It makes sense for the Holy Spirit specifically to expose through the Scriptures that fornication is wrong because of the natural tendency of the flesh to justify that sin. In today's largely heathenised culture, there are many who see nothing wrong whatsoever with fornication since it does not violate another person's marriage.
In light of what has been shown concerning the duality of "wife" and "putting away" or "divorce", it would seem unreasonable from a scholastic point of view to reject all consideration that the word fornication in those two exception clauses may be bearing its exclusive premarital definition. But that is exactly what modern scholars have done by changing the word fornication to adultery in the exception clauses. It appears that straightforward scholastic consideration was overruled by personal philosophical ideology. Though this extremely serious and damnable heresy is being committed largely out of ignorance, the Holy Scriptures reveal that God is highly displeased. See 2 Peter 2:1-3. The N.I.V. gave its readers no other option than to accept that adultery is in fact legal grounds for divorce by fearlessly changing the word fornication into "marital unfaithfulness" which is adultery. Those kinds of versions, along with the many erroneous commentaries on the subject, establish a strong rejection to any consideration that the word fornication or its Greek equivalent as found in the exception clauses could mean the premarital sin exclusively. But those who are yielded to the Spirit of Truth, and thereby also to the true Word of God, are able to partake of a restoration of truth on this subject and so return to "the old paths where is the good way" and find rest for their souls. (See Jer. 6:16).
Traditionally, Christianity has prohibited divorce. This change in doctrine happens to coincide with the introduction of modern "Bibles" beginning in the late 1800's, which departed from the traditional manuscripts from which the King James Version was translated. The uncorrupted text from which the Authorized Version was made, is known as the Majority, Received, or Traditional Text. It was highly revered by the people of God until recent times when modern departures began to flood the market. That other Greek text, from which most modern Bibles have come, is corrupt. This along with the liberties taken by modern scholarship, are two main factors responsible for the many omissions and changes that are found in modern "Bibles".
Isn't it interesting that Matthew, who was the only writer to mention the exception clause, also happens to be the only writer who left us with enough details to learn about Mary and Joseph's betrothed or espoused state prior to their becoming fully husband and wife? See Matt. 1:18-24. But the N.I.V. and other modern bibles also have these references changed, again depriving the reader from discovering how they were "husband" and "wife" before marriage! Other than a vague, possibly applicable statement by Paul, Matthew is the only N.T. writer who makes this modern day peculiarity visible. But it doesn't stop there. We not only discover the unmarried husband and wife, we also find the husband ready to divorce his betrothed wife for what he thought was fornication! I refuse to see this as coincidental. God so allowed that the Gospel according to Matthew; the only one that refers to the exception, is also the only one that contains a form of definition of how it is done!
What can be said about John the Baptist? Before Jesus, he was the greatest prophet born of a woman ever to walk the planet. Jesus made that claim. John was greater than Noah, Daniel or Job, or even Enoch or Elijah, even though he wasn't translated or taken up in a whirlwind. Yes, John fulfilled Malachi's prophecy of the coming of Elijah before Jesus (See Matt. 17:10-13; 11:7-11,14 Luke 7:24-28 Mark 9:11-13 Mal. 3:1; 4:6 Luke 1:13-17) but he was greater than Elijah. Jesus was the greatest man ever to be born of a woman, and he didn't get a ride into heaven in a chariot of fire. He died a cruel death standing in defence of the truth.
It appears to be a greater honour than Elijah's, for John, like Jesus, also to die in defence of the truth. To be more precise, he died for standing in defence of a particular biblical truth. He told Herod that it was unlawful for him to marry his brother Philip's wife. What Paul wrote about the wife being bound by the law as long as her husband lives, perfectly describes the truth which John was defending. (See Mark 6:14-29 Romans 7:2,3 and 1 Cor. 7:39). The honour for his dying for the truth, cannot be taken away from that truth for which he died. Thus did God choose to honour the "friend of the bridegroom". See John 3:29
We can call John the last living prophet before Jesus as we can call Malachi the last writing prophet. And Malachi also was he who prophesied of John's ministry (Mal.3: 1; 4:5). Isn't it interesting that this same prophet who prophesied of John's ministry, also makes the most zealous defence of what God said about marriage that is found anywhere in the Old Testament? This is in the second chapter of the last book in the Old Testament and that which it is defending is in the second chapter of the first book of the Old Testament. It appears that through Malachi's writings, God is confirming what he initially established in Genesis. Also, the same spirit of reasoning is found in Malachi as was used by Jesus. Jesus asked, "Have ye not read?" and Malachi asked, "And did not he make one"? They are both referring to the second chapter of Genesis in regard to God's Word pronouncing Adam and Eve "one flesh". It is as if God expected the hearers who knew Genesis chapter two, to have easily concluded that divorce is unquestionably forbidden by reason of the fact that the husband and wife are one flesh.
Were the modern translators and commentators unaware of the duality in regard to divorcing a wife? Even though they perceived a duality of being "married", as is evident in the paraphrasing which the N.I.V. people did concerning Lot's daughters, they apparently failed to make a connection with the exception clause. Their assumption that a wife could only mean a completely married wife would explain their changing the exception of fornication into the exception of adultery. But in so doing they have made it impossible for the exception clause to apply to anything other than the married state. This also permanently transfers the status of the married to that of betrothed. This causes the restriction made by Jesus, which forbids divorce and remarriage, to be denied. See Titus 1:16 Mark 8:38 and 2 Tim. 2:12,13.
We must not shield the translators from blame for committing violence against the Word of God. (Zeph. 3:4,5) Ignorance is not cited by God as an exception in regard to the punishment awaiting those who take away and add to His Word. (Pro. 30:6) To some extent, they took lightly their work of translating (which often amounted to paraphrasing) and leaned on their own understanding. They lacked the fear of God.
Christians should band together in His Name to:
- Demand that those who have made it appear as if Jesus legalised divorce, to accept responsibility. An open admission of this error will more easily enable those affected to abandon it.
- Demand that any further printing of these so-called Bibles that legalise divorce and thereby also adultery by remarriage be immediately stopped.
- Denounce any form of the "innocent party theory" which allows adultery by its endorsement of remarriage for the innocent husband or wife in a broken marriage.
In closing: Praise be to God, whose Word is found very capable of defending itself when men who have been given that responsibility have failed. The following quotation on this subject of divorce and remarriage, glorifies God for the wonderfulness of His Word that contains such depth and power of Truth but which at the same time is spoken in such straightforward simplicity:
"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery." Mark 10:11,12
This article is distributed by a ministry that is making a call for reformation: a return to biblically sound Christianity. Articles that provide correction of other widely accepted incorrect Christian teaching may be obtained from: L. Jones, 6 Ralwin Court, Central, Port Elizabeth, 6001. Rep. of South Africa. (041) 585-1006